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. 6905 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 2045/2008 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ---------------------------------------- JOSE PAUL T.M.,S/O. T.V. MARCILIN, KAITHAVALAPPIL (THAMARASSERY) HOUSE, MANJUMMEL PO., ELOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL, POLICE STATION REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR DE FACATO COMPLAINANT P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH 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. 6905 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of November,2008 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 408 and 477 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner was working as a Deputy Salesman in an establishment, where de facto complainant was working as General Manager. During the period 27-11-2007 and 31-3-2008 while petitioner was working in the establishment, he collected various amounts from various dealers and failed to deposit the same in the account of the establishment and thereby, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.10,60,000/-. Therefore, a complaint was filed by the General Manager, based on which, the crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. If a proper accounting is done, petitioner's innocence will be revealed, it is submitted. Petitioner is falsely implicated, since he demanded enhancement of his salary from the company and a complaint was also filed by him before the Commissioner of Police in this regard. BA 6905/08 -2- 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for de facto complainant were heard. It is submitted by them that as per the statement given by various dealers, several amounts were received by petitioner, but such amounts were not deposited in the account of the establishment. Thereby, petitioner committed misappropriation. Learned counsel for de facto complainant also submitted that an opportunity was given to petitioner to establish his innocence and an accounting was done. But it was only confirmed that huge amounts are misappropriated by petitioner. It is submitted that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that on the facts of this case and in the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is required for interrogation, since there will be many materials which are in his exclusive knowledge. The crime was registered as early as on 16-10-2008 and petitioner has not been available for interrogation so far. Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Magistrate court concerned or before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, BA 6905/08 -3- police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, this petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.