Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.1412/2014 of the Mathilakam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC.
3. A1 is the Credit Manager and A2 and A3 are the Managers of the Bank of Baroda, Mathilakam Branch. A4 is the Appraiser being engaged by the Bank. According to the petitioner, A1, who was in friendly terms with the petitioner, had entrusted 177.600 grams of gold ornaments, by stating that the same belong to him, by requesting that it should be pledged in M/s.Chaudeswari Finance, which is situated very near to the Bank and to hand over him the amount. It was so requested by A1, by projecting the ground that being an employee of the Nationalized Bank, it was not possible for him to pledge the gold in such a private financing institution. Complying with the said request, the petitioner pledged the said gold ornaments and obtained money and handed over it to A1. Some days after, when some irregularities were traced out in the Bank, A1 directed the petitioner to redeem the gold by paying the amounts and to hand over the gold ornaments back to A1. Complying with the same, the petitioner obtained amounts from A1, redeemed the gold ornaments and handed it over back to A1.
4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
5. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, a total quantity of 1106.500 grams of gold ornaments, valued at ₹ 30,43,000/-, was taken away from the Bank by A1 and through several persons, he had either disposed of the gold or pledged it. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the quantity of 177.600 grams of gold was ultimately traced out from beneath the dining table which was there in another room of the Bank. It is also submitted that CCTV footage from the Bank shows that during odd hours, the petitioner was found along with A1 inside the Bank. It is also pointed out that the quantity of 988 grams of gold ornaments is yet to be recovered.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that he had gone to the Bank for handing over the gold redeemed by him to A1. Therefore, his presence in the CCTV footage does not make any difference at all. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that apart from the aforesaid 177.600 grams of the gold ornaments, no other gold ornaments were handed over to him by A1 and that he had not pledged any such gold ornaments in any other financial institutions. The contention resorted to by the present petitioner is believable. According to the petitioner, he will abide by any of the directions of this Court and he will co-operate with the investigation in any manner. A1 is absconding. It seems that the balance gold ornaments can be recovered at the instance of A1 only. Considering all the above, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner on conditions.
In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays and Fridays, commencing from 04.11.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.
It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE DSV/31/10