2025:KER:27939 1 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 BAIL APPL. NO. 3900 OF 2025 CRIME NO.3/2024 OF VACB, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ABHILASH L.N AGED 42 YEARS S/O LAMUEL.M, ANANDA BHAVAN, KURAKONAM, POOVACHAL, VEERNAKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. BY ADV R.B.BALACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATE OF KERALA VACB, SOUTHERN RANGE, POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. SR PP SMT REKHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:27939 2 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2025 O R D E R The petitioner is the accused in VC No.03/2024/SRT of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Southern Range, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against him are punishable under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 7(c) and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). He has filed this petition under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is the following: The petitioner was working as Supervisor in Agro Super Bazaar under the Kerala Agro Industries Corporation during the years 2019 to 2022. While in charge of cash and bank accounts of the Super Bazaar, he manipulated the accounting system by installing a software and diverted huge amounts into his account. Thereby, 2025:KER:27939 3 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.66,11,330/-. Subsequently, he remitted back Rs.14,25,000/-. He thus has committed the aforementioned offences. 3. The petitioner filed Crl.M.C.No.1685 of 2022 before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking anticipatory bail. At that time, the offences under Sections 406, 409 and 420 of the IPC alone were alleged. Subsequently, the offences under the PC Act were also added. The learned Sessions Judge as per Annexure-2 order dismissed that petition holding that the materials made available prima facie showed the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offences and that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for proper investigation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after registration of crime in 2022, the petitioner has been very much available, but, he was never summoned or interrogated by the investigating agency. Only recently he was 2025:KER:27939 4 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 questioned, however, after questioning, he was let off. It is submitted that the employer although initiated a departmental action, he was reinstated in service which probabilises the innocence of the petitioner. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that considering the nature of the allegations levelled against him, the custodial interrogation or detention of the petitioner is absolutely unnecessary and therefore he is entitled to get pre-arrest bail. 6. The learned Senior Pubic Prosecutor would invited my attention to the modus operandi in committing the misappropriation and would submit that his custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary for the investigating agency to come to a logical conclusion. It is further submitted that the departmental action is pending and his reinstatement in service by rescinding suspension does not mean that he is innocent. Further, a part of the misappropriated amount was remitted back by the petitioner and that also points to the guilt on the part of the petitioner. Thus, the Senior Public Prosecutor maintains that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 2025:KER:27939 5 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 7. The parameters to grant an order of pre-arrest bail have been succinctly laid down by the Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] in the following lines: “112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: i. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences; v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; 2025:KER:27939 6 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the last more than two years the petitioner was very much available for interrogation but no effective steps were taken by the investigating agency. If the allegations against the petitioner are true, the same would certainly be borne by records or cyber data. Of course, in order to unearth the evidence concerning the alleged mischievous acts cooperation of the petitioner may be required. But, for that purpose alone, the petitioner need not be detained pending investigation. When the petitioner is continuing in service, 2025:KER:27939 7 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 there need not be any apprehension that he would flee from justice. By ensuring availability of the petitioner, he can be extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail. 9. Accordingly this petition is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today; (ii) In the event of the petitioner’s arrest, the investigating officer shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount; (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation, as and when directed by the investigating officer; (iv) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement or threat to the defacto complainant or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (v) The petitioner shall not go abroad without obtaining permission from the jurisdictional court; (vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail; 2025:KER:27939 8 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 (vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law; (viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the jurisdictional court; and (ix) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the investigating officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663]. Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE SMF/dkr 2025:KER:27939 9 Bail Appl.No.3900 of 2025 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3900/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 19.6.24 ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 19/08/2022PASSED IN CRL.M.C. NO.1685/2022 BY THE SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 05.06.2023 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LIMITED DATED 31.07.2023