Saphy V.R vs State Of Kerala And Ors

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. VC 4/2018/KLM of Vigilance and Anti corruption Bureau Kollam.

The prosecution case is that the petitioner being a public servant, while working in the office of Special Tahsildar LA No.1, Kollam during the

period of 2007-2008, with an intention of obtaining undue pecuniary advantage, prepared a D-form cheque bearing No.72143 for an amount of

Rs.9,14,630/- as compensation for the acquired land for National Water Ways, No.3, in the name of One Vijayan, Kaleelazhikathu Veedu, Chavara

and the cheque was encashed from the treasury Kollam by which the Government sustained a loss of Rs.9,14,630/- and thereby the 1st accused

committed the offence under Section 13 (1) (c) (d) (ii) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. The offence under Section 417, 420, 468, 471 and 201 I.P.C. is

also alleged.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, this is a case originally registered in 2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that, the petitioner is not involved in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he was doing only his duties as instructed by his

superior officers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the petitioner and she was

suspended from service. Subsequently, she is reinstated and posted at Kasargod. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, after four years

the vigilance is now trying to arrest the petitioner simply because the petitioner is not ready to give the confession statement in tune with the

prosecution case. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant her bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is necessary. The learned Public Prosecutor made available a statement filed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-corruption

Bureau, Kollam unit dated 03.12.2020 in which it is stated that, the presence of the petitioner is necessary for interrogation.

After hearing both sides, I think this is not a fit case, in which this Court can invoke the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It is true that the

investigation is going on for about four years. When the Investigating Officer says that, he wants the custodial interrogation of the case, this court

cannot refuse the same without any reason. I perused the report submitted by the Investigating Officer. I think there is some force in the submission

of the investigating officer that the interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, she

will surrender before the Investigating Officer and will co-operate with the investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since

the only ground of the prosecution to oppose the bail is that, they want to interrogate the petitioner, she submitted that, she will co-operate with the

investigating Officer and after interrogation there may be a direction to the Court concerned to release the petitioner on bail. In such circumstances

this bail application is disposed of with the following directions.

The petitioner will surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today.

If the petitioner surrender before the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer can interrogate him. After interrogation if the petitioner is

arrested, he will be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day.

At that stage, if any bail application is filed by the petitioner after giving prior notice to the Prosecutor concerned, the Court will consider the bail

application preferably on the date of filing of the same itself. While considering the bail application, the lower court will also consider the fact that, the

petitioner is a lady.