IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1996 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 63/2010 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION ......................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------- M. SAITHALI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. MAYINKUTTY, MULLAPALLI HOUSE, PANTHEERANKAVU AMSOM, PALAZHI DESOM, GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLLEGE.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673 014. BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (THROUGH SHO, NALLALAM POLICE STATION) BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1996 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.63/2010 of Nallalam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. One Ahammad, Mullappally House, Palazhi had an account in the State Bank of India, Kozhikode Branch. The account was opened in 2006. Ahammad was aged more than 80 years. His son Pareekutty was employed abroad as a driver. Ahammad had considerable amount in his account. However, in October 2009, Ahammad entertained a doubt that some manipulations were made in his account. As per the estimation of Ahammad, a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty two lakhs only) must have been there in the account. But on verification, it was found that more than a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs only) was withdrawn from his account B.A. No. 1996 of 2010 2 using ATM card. The de facto complainant is Pareekutty, son of Ahammad. The specific case put forward by the de facto complainant is that Ahammad was being helped by the petitioner in operating the account. The petitioner is none other than son of the elder brother of Ahammad. It is alleged that without the knowledge of Ahammad, the petitioner used to withdraw amounts from the account of Ahammad on various occasions from 16.02.2006 to 11.08.2009. The total amount thus drawn by him would come to more than Rs. 21,00,000/- (Rupees twenty one lakhs only). 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest. It is submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. The petitioner relies on Annexure A3 statement dated nil allegedly signed by Ahammad. In Annexure A3, two signatures and a finger print are seen. Conspicuously, the date is absent. 5. I have perused the Case Diary file. It is seen that Ahammad had filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kozhikode about the misdeeds of the petitioner herein and the misappropriation of amounts from the account of Ahammad. It is seen that the petition was forwarded to the Sub B.A. No. 1996 of 2010 3 Inspector of Police, Nallalam Police Station. However, no crime is seen registered on the basis of that petition. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to any discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln