IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6806 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.925/08 OF PANANGADU POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED. --------------------------------------- RAJEEV H.PILLAI, SON OF HARIHARAN PILLAI AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARUMURIPARAMBIL HOUSE, R.P.M.H. SCHOOL, KUMBALAM P.O., KOCHI - 682 506. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT. --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAGADU POLICE STATION. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6806 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 408, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner was working as Sales Executive in the company, in which de facto complainant is the Managing Director. Petitioner has to collect money from various dealers and deposit in the company's account. Petitioner collected huge amount from various dealers, but did not pay the same to the company and on that account, a loss of Rs.5,50,000/- was caused to the company and he misappropriated the said amount. He also committed theft of Rs.88,798/- from the depot. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was working in the company for a salary of Rs.5,250/-. The salary was too low and hence he was insisting for enhancement of salary. But the company was not prepared to enhance the salary. He wanted to resign from the company and joined in another firm for higher salary. On knowing this, the management approached petitioner and insisted him to continue in the same company and promised to pay more salary, but petitioner was not willing to BA.6806/08 2 accept this and hence a false complaint is filed against petitioner to wreak vengeance against him. Payments from the dealers used to be made through account payee cheque and demand drafts and hence, petitioner cannot misappropriate any amount, it is submitted. When petitioner joined the company, he had given three cheques as security and the company also misused the same and lodged complaint against petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the same amount. 4. This petition is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and also learned counsel appearing for de facto complainant. Both were heard. They have submitted that this is a clear case of cheating and misappropriation. Several dealers are questioned by the police and on questioning them, it is revealed that though petitioner is expected to receive only demand drafts and account payee cheques, he had collected amounts in cash from the dealers and without depositing the same, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-. It is also submitted that petitioner had issued three cheques to the company towards the amount which was misappropriated by him. But, those cheques bounded on presenting, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that though the present case set up by petitioner at the time of argument is that the cheques were were given as security, and those were forged and BA.6806/08 3 misused, this contention is totally belied by the statement made in the bail application. From the bail application it is clear that the cheques were handed over only recently and those were given for some other purpose and not as security at the time of getting the job. It is also submitted that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations made against petitioner and the nature of investigation that may be required, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. There will be several facts which are in the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner, which can be ascertained only by questioning the accused by the police. The crime was registered as early as on 30.9.2008 and petitioner could not be arrested so far. Petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer without delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any time. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.