IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3998 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.V.C.5/2009 OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- S.MADHUSOODHANAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, THEVARMADATHIL HOUSE, AVOLY KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE. (ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR, KALLOORKAD). BY ADV. SRIK.C.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPALAINANT: ---------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------- B.A.No.3998 of 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime V.C.5 of 2009 of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Ernakulam. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows: The daughter of the de facto complainant informed the police that her neighbour had attempted to outrage her modesty. The petitioner, who was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Kalloorkad Police Station, recorded the First Information Statement of the de facto complainant in that case and received a sum of Rs.200/- as bribe. The further allegation is that the petitioner demanded a further sum of Rs.1,500/- for the further investigation of the case. The de facto complainant in the present case (who is the father of the lady who gave the First Information Statement in the other case) stated that he is a coolie and that he was unable to pay the amount. The petitioner BA No.3998/2009 2 then reduced the amount from Rs.1,500/- to Rs.500/-. The de facto complainant informed the Vigilance Police and the petitioner was trapped, after he received the amount of Rs.500/-. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 29.6.2009 and he is in judicial custody. 5. The petitioner filed B.A.No.3703 of 2009 which was dismissed by the order dated 7th July 2009. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the investigation has progressed thereafter. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the stage of investigation, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any BA No.3998/2009 3 prejudicial activity while on bail; e) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl