The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petitioner's bail application. The court held it was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail due to the gravity of the offences involving conspiracy and loss to the Public Exchequer, noting investigation was at an initial stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/18TH JYAISHTA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 3124 of 2012 (A)
IN CRMC.757/2012 of SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR CRIME NO. 237/2012 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION.
ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED:
MANJULA P.V., W/O.AJITH KUMAR,DOOR NO.D1 47,MARUTHI APARTMENTS, ADIYATT LANE,POOTHOLE,THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.B.PRAJITH SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.237 OF 2012)IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR-680017.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SREEJITH V S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
LSN
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 3124 OF 2012
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 08th day of June, 2012
O R D E R
The petitioner is the 10th accused in Crime No.237/2012 of Irinjalakkuda Police Station. The offences alleged against him and other accused are under sections 420, 468,406,409, 471, 201 and 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC.
B.A.No.3124/2012
-2-
petitioner submits that petitioner is totally innocent. Her application for anticipatory bail was twice dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a sum of ` 1,13,340/- was the amount stated to have been lost, as per the loss now estimated. The learned senior counsel submits that the information received by her as per the Right to Information Act would show that it was not the petitioner who was responsible for causing the manipulation or fabrication in the entries.
B.A.No.3124/2012
-3-
petitioner also. The information obtained under the Right to Information Act cannot affect the investigation of the matter or the materials collected. The learned senior counsel submits that the system prevents data manipulation by any one individual. There is entry level, verify level and issue level checking and so it is contended that the petitioner has also manipulated or fabricated the entries. The investigation is only at the initial stage. Investigating officer could gather materials showing the complicity of this petitioner as well. The Case Diary has been made available. The contention that petitioner had no role in the alleged manipulation/ fabrication, cannot be accepted in view of what is contained in the Case Diary.
If the petitioner surrenders before the
Police/Investigating Officer, after interrogation the petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate and if the petitioner
B.A.No.3124/2012 -4-
applies for bail the learned Magistrate will dispose of the same in accordance with law, but after hearing the learned APP as well and also after perusal of the case diary, if so required and also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Investigating Officer files application for police custody for further interrogation that shall also be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.
Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ds
//True copy//
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the 10th accused in the case.
Whether the gravity of offences under sections 420, 468, 406, 409, 471, 201 and 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC warrants denial of bail.
Manjula P.V.
State Represented by Public Prosecutor
N.K. Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
