IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 2877 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.290/2007 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- B.SOMASEKHARAN ASARI, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.BALASUBRAMANIAN ASARI, REMYALAYAM, MARUTHAMALA P.O., VITHURA, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.P.P.BIJU RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------ B.A.No.2877 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.290 of 2007 of Vithura Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. There were lot of complaints in the matter of failure to implement the various projects under the Peoples Planning Programme, in the Vithura Panchayath area. A vigilance enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. A report was submitted to the Principal Secretary to the Government. One of the matters dealt with by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau is the allegation against the petitioner of having misappropriated amounts. It is alleged that one of the projects was cultivation of various types of plants in Vithura Panchayath area. The total amount allocated was Rs.2,60,000/-. The work was entrusted to Saptha Charitable Society of which the petitioner is the Secretary. It is alleged that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was BA No.2877/2009 2 received by the petitioner for implementation of the project. The petitioner submitted bogus vouchers and received the amount. Newly elected President of the Panchayath reported that the petitioner failed to plant 50,000 saplings in the Panchayath area as envisaged under the project, thereby causing huge loss to the Government. Thus, it is alleged, the petitioner has committed the offence alleged against him. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is nothing to connect the petitioner in respect of any incident which allegedly took place in 1998-1999. On a perusal of the case diary, I am not in a position to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Taking into account the facts and circumstance of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Crl.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The matter requires further investigation. Custodial interrogation may be necessary. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would affect the smooth and proper investigation of the case. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl