IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 524 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRMP.84/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA CR.NO.5/08 OF PAMPA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- B.HARIKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. V.S.K.DAS, VAISHNAVI, TC 28/155, KAITHAMUKKU, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAMPA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 524 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008 ORDER All faiths, religious or otherwise, at some point of time, transcend pure rationality. But faiths and near superstitious convictions and assumptions of the faithful have helped a lot in upholding and ensuring morality among the polity. The faith of the innocent have often been exploited also by the merchants of faith. 2. In this bail application we come across an instance where the innocent faith of the faithful has allegedly been exploited for self-aggrandisement by an allegedly unscrupulous employee of the Travancore Devaswom Board which is duty bound to manage and administer the Godly institution. I must say that I cannot restrain myself and have to record my appreciation for the prompt action taken by the B.A. No. 524 OF 2008 -: 2 :- Special Officer and his subordinates on coming to know of this crime. 3. A Canadian devotee of Sabarimala allegedly wanted to make offerings of cash and ornaments at the Annadhanam counter at Sabarimala. The petitioner was allegedly on duty to receive the offerings by way of cash. He received the cash and gave receipt. He also received ornaments of about 4 sovereigns also from the devotee. No receipt was given for those ornaments. When asked about it, the devotee was assured that the receipt will be issued elsewhere. He innocently believed the version. But later, doubts and suspicions were aroused. Whether God himself was being cheated was suspected. A complaint was lodged before the Special Commissioner. The Special Commissioner immediately sprung into action. Statements were recorded. The petitioner admittedly gave a statement accepting that he had received not only cash but also the ornaments. Admittedly he was not competent or authorised to receive ornaments and issue receipts. Why then did he receive the ornaments? It is his version now that he only wanted to help the devotee and instead of asking the devotee to B.A. No. 524 OF 2008 -: 3 :- place the same in the `Kanikkavanchi', he claimed that he had put it in the Kanikkavanchi. An unsuspecting devotee, who believes that the employee of the Devaswom Board have also trust in the power of God, may have meekly swallowed that version. But the Special Officer got the Kanikkavanchi opened and verified. The offerings of the devotee were not there at all. Finally, the complaint has been filed before the police. A crime has been registered under Sec.381 of the IPC. Investigation has commenced. In the course of investigation, the Section of offence has been altered and the petitioner now faces allegations under Sec.408 of the IPC. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He stands by his version that he placed the ornaments in the Kanikkavanchi. Undoubtedly, he has no right to receive the ornament offerings made to God in his hands. But according to him, he asserts that he placed the same in the Kanikkavanchi. Why is it not available in the Kanikkavanchi? The petitioner is not able to offer any explanation. The Kanikkavanchi might have been cleared B.A. No. 524 OF 2008 -: 4 :- earlier, it is suggested. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a serious view is bound to be taken. The ornaments have not been recovered so far. The petitioner must be subjected to close interrogation. Attempt must be made to recover the misappropriated/stolen gold ornaments. At this stage, the petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail. Grant of such an order would seriously hamper the smooth course of investigation and would adversely affect the ability of the police to recover the article concerned and to conduct a proper investigation in this case. The petitioner may be directed to co-operate with the Investigators, to surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 6. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find the objections of the learned Public Prosecutor to be eminently justifiable. I am unable to find any features in this case which would justify or warrant the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner, B.A. No. 524 OF 2008 -: 5 :- I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, must surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. 7. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seeks bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge