Kerala High Court
Mohammed Rafi P.S vs State Of Kerala on 20 November, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.6204 OF 2020
CRIME NO.238/2019 OF Chengannoor Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MOHAMMED RAFI P.S.
AGED 53 YEARS
RAFEENA MANZIL,
KUTTIKKATTU CMC,
CHERTHALA
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
688524
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI
SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA -682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION
AGED 50 YEARS
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION,
CHENGANNUR P.O.
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
689121
R1 BY SRI.SANTOSH PETER, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 6204 Of 2020
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------
B.A.No.6204 of 2020
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of November, 2020
O R D E R
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) was heard through Video Conference.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 238/2019 of Chengannoor Police Station, Alappuzha District. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 409, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. The prosecution case is that, during the period from 20.06.2016 to 26.07.2018, the petitioner while working as Officer-in-Charge of the Supply-co Super Marker Chengannur, by using forged ration cards committed misappropriation and breach of trust and thereby the Government of Kerala Sustained a pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 5,75,124/-(Five B.A.No. 6204 Of 2020 3 Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundered and Twenty Four).
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the allegation against the petitioner are not correct. The learned counsel submitted that in addition to the petitioner, other employees are also there in the Office of the petitioner. The petitioner alone is implicated in the case. The learned counsel submitted that no disciplinary proceedings also initiated against the petitioner. That itself shows that the petitioner is not guilty for the offences alleged. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions if this Court is granting bail to him.
6. The learned public prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The public prosecutor submitted that, Government money is misappropriated by the petitioner is the allegation. A detailed B.A.No. 6204 Of 2020 4 investigation is necessary and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is also necessary.
7. After hearing both sides I think this is not a fit case in which orders under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C can be passed.
8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he is prepared to co-operate with the investigation and prays for issuance of necessary orders to that effect. Therefore, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within 10 days from today;
(ii) If the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer within 10 days from today, the investigating officer will interrogate the petitioner and thereafter if he is arrested, he will be produced before the jurisdictional Court forthwith;
(iii) At the time of production of the accused before the Court, if a bail application is B.A.No. 6204 Of 2020 5 filed by the petitioner before the Court concerned after giving prior notice to the Prosecutor concerned, the Court will consider the bail application on merits preferably on the date of filing of the same itself.
This bail application is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE avs