Kerala High Court
V.K.Mohanan vs State Of Kerala on 2 September, 2015
Author: A. Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/11TH BHADRA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 4901 of 2015
-------------------------------
CC 21/2013 OF VIGILANCE COURT,THRISSUR.
........
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------
V.K.MOHANAN, (UDC UNER SUSPENSION)
WORKING IN CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
CHALAKUDY TALUK, SUPPLY OFFICER,
UNDER CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,
PUBLIC OFFICE, L M S COMPOUND JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.S.B.JAYACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT,
VIGILANCE DIRECTORATE, PMG JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, THRISSUR 686 001.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.4901 of 2015
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of September 2015
O R D E R
Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner is the 1st accused in C.C. No.21 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The allegation is that while the petitioner was working as a Shop Manager in a Maveli store, Athirappally over a period from 20.07.2009 to 27.05.2010, he has misappropriated money and thereby committed the offences punishable under Secs.13 (1)(c) and (d) read with Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Secs.409, 420 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The final report in this case has already been filed. The petitioner is an absconding accused as per the records as he is the accused in L.P. No.1 of 2014.
4. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that the petitioner did not appear before the Court so Bail Appl. No.4901 of 2015 2 far, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail in this case, especially noticing the fact that he is involved in offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Hence the bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
A. HARIPRASAD
JUDGE
/ True Copy /
NS P.A. To Judge