IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4790 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.625/08 OF KATTAPANA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- M.K.ANTONY, ACCOUNTANT, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KATTAPANA. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KATTAPANA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.4790 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th August, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a complaint was lodged by the Senior Manager of the Bank alleging that on 17.5.2008, the petitioner and two others, who are bank employees, allowed a person to withdraw Rs.50,300/- from account No.5658 which was in the name of one Georgekutty and his wife. The petitioner was the Accountant, who was in charge of the Senior Manger, when he was on leave. As per the allegations in the complaint and the first information statement, on enquiries made by him, it was understood that that the petitioner had not been vigilant in dealing with the case and when a couple came to the bank, they were given cheque leaf and they were allowed to withdraw the amount when they represented to be the account holders. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that from 1984 onwards, the petitioner has been working in the bank and so far no complaint has been filed against him. There was no departmental enquiry also. Even as per the allegations in the first information BA.4790/08 2 statement, the allegation was that he was not vigilant and hence, money happened to be misappropriated by some person. Even after the criminal complaint was filed, no action was taken against the petitioner at the departmental level. Petitioner may not be required for custodial interrogation. He is prepared to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail on conditions. Hence, the following order is passed. i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and make himself available for interrogation. ii) Thereafter, if the petitioner is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on condition that he will co-operate with the investigation and report before the officer as and when directed. This petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.