IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5118 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.78 OF 2011 OF ENATHU POLICE STATION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SAHAJAN, S/O.KUNJUKUTTY, S/O.KUNJUKUTTY, AGED 53, MANAGER(2007-2010) STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KADAMPANADU BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KOLLAM. 2. SATHYAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 53, FILED OFFICER (2005-2008), STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KADAMPANADU BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY MANAGER (ACCOUNTS) KANNUR UNIVERSITY BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ENATHU POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.5118 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of July, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.78 of 2011 of Enathu Police Station, Pathanamthitta District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 418, 420, 465, 467 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that in order to deny the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme, 2008, to the de facto complainant, the accused persons, who were respectively the Branch Manager and the Deputy Manager (Advance) of the State Bank of Travancore, Kadampanadu Branch, manipulated the records in such a way that the benefit of the scheme was not available to the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is B.A.No.5118/2011 2 no material to arrive at the conclusion, prima facie, that the petitioners manipulated the records. It is submitted that there would be no personal benefit to the petitioners, even if all the allegations are found to be true. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation revealed that there was no misappropriation of funds and on the question whether crediting the amounts in the account concerned by diverting amounts from other loans of the de facto complainant, expert opinion is required. Three loans were availed by the de facto complainant. His case is that he is entitled to the benefit of the Agricultural Debt Relief Scheme in respect of the loans. However, the accused persons diverted the remittances from one account to the other so as to deny the benefit of the scheme to the de facto complainant. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the B.A.No.5118/2011 3 petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail for a period of one month on their executing bond for ` 10,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required . B) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence . C) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; D) Before the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular 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 to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl