RUGMINI & Ors. v. STATE OF KERALA

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 792 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 1 and 3 in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The first accused is a woman, aged about 52 years, who was employed as the Accounts Manager of Chemmannur Jewellers, the defacto complainant. The second petitioner/A3 is a girl aged about 20 years and daughter of the first accused. Accused No.4 is the son of the first accused. The second accused is the shop Manager of the defacto complainant at Palghat.

2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioners is that while under the employment of the defacto complainant, they had tampered with the accounts as well as the computer of the establishment in an attempt to siphon out huge amounts, about Rs. 40 lakhs, from the coffers of the defacto complainant. This B.A.No. 792 of 2008 2 was allegedly done by manipulating the accounts and the computer. The spoils were allegedly shared by accused 1 and 2.

2. The allegations against the second petitioner/A3 is that she as also her brother/A4 used to visit the establishment and helped their mother/A1 . The allegations are raised not only against accused 1 and 2 but also against accused 3 and 4. The 4th accused, it is submitted, is an expert and qualified to operate the computer. There is no case that the second petitioner/A3 has any special knowledge on computers.

3. One of the employees of the defacto complainant at Palghat happened to come across a shady dealing in cash between accused 1 and 2 in the restroom of the establishment. Thereupon he informed his employer. The employer along with a team of officials came and inspected the accounts. It is in the course of such attempt that they came to know that there was an ongoing effort to siphon out money from the establishment by clandestine and dishonest means. The accounts were manipulated to facilitate such misappropriation. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. B.A.No. 792 of 2008 3

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. The first petitioner was admittedly an employee of the defacto complainant. She had discharged the duties assigned to her honestly and faithfully. But she was paid meager wages. She demanded enhancement of the remuneration and this allegedly infuriated her employer. The employer is now inventing reasons to vex and harass her. She has not done any manipulation. She has discharged her duties honestly. In any view of the matter, the first petitioner does not deserve to suffer the trauma of arrest and detention. She is willing to co-operate with the Investigators. She may, in these circumstances, be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

5. Coming to the third accused, the learned counsel submits that she, a young girl, who has attained majority now, is being threatened and harassed in order to compel and coerce the first petitioner to accept the terms of the employer. The first accused is compelled to resign from the establishment. She refused to do the same. To coerce the first accused to accept such terms, false allegations are made against the 3rd and 4th accused. The second petitioner has never been working B.A.No. 792 of 2008 4 in the establishment. She is not in any way helping the first accused in respect of any matter connected with the establishment. The son of the first petitioner was abducted. The present attempt is only to coerce the first accused to accept the terms of the employer by threatening action against her unmarried daughter. In these circumstances it is prayed that the petitioner/third accused is at any rate entitled for anticipatory bail.

6. In so far as the first accused is concerned, the learned Prosecutor submits that all the available indications do point to the culpable involvement of the first accused. The case diary was placed before me at my request. I have gone through the same. Investigation is not complete nor can it be said to be exhaustive at the moment. I note that the services of a computer expert has been requisitioned and he has examined all the relevant details. He has submitted a report, in which it is pointed out very clearly that there are reasons to suspect manipulation of the computer and that the accounts are tampered with. In these circumstances I agree with the Prosecutor that the first accused is not entitled for anticipatory bail. She has to answer a lot of B.A.No. 792 of 2008 5 questions on the basis of the report of the expert. Custodial interrogation of the first accused is absolutely necessary. The fact that she is a woman is by itself not sufficient, according to me, to invoke the discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in her favour. She has to co- operate with the Investigators. The case diary shows that ever since the allegations are raised, the first accused has been absconding. She is not giving explanations that are required. I am satisfied that the prayer of the first accused can be rejected.

7. So far as the third accused is concerned, I take note of the stand of the learned Prosecutor that anticipatory bail can be granted to her, subject to appropriate conditions, which shall ensure the interests of a proper investigation. The documents produced by the petitioner along with the bail application do show that the petitioners and their relatives have been complaining about high handed action on the part of the officials of the defacto complainant to vex and harass them. But it is seen that all such action commenced on the basis of the allegation that the first accused is guilty of financial fraud. I am B.A.No. 792 of 2008 6 satisfied that the third accused can be granted anticipatory bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions.

8. In the result: (1) This application in so far as it relates to the first petitioner (A1) is dismissed with the observation that if the said petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the second petitioner(A3). (a) The second petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 21.2.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the second petitioner on regular bail on condition that she executes a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. B.A.No. 792 of 2008 7 (b) She shall make herself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 22.2.2008 and

23.2.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter she shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (c) If the second petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 21.2.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with her in accordance with law. (d) If the second petitioner were arrested prior to her surrender on 21.2.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 21.2.2008. B.A.No. 792 of 2008 8 (R. BASANT) Judge