Point of law : direction to surrender militates against the concept of ‘anticipatory bail’ and that it is illegal for the Court to direct the accused to surrender before the investigating officer and when Court dismisses the application for anticipatory bail, there is no justification at all to direct the accused to surrender before the Magistrate or the investigating officer.

ORDER :

1. This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’).

2. The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No. 240/2021 of the Museum Police Station.

3. The case was registered against the accused initially under Sections 408, 417 and 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the investigating officer filed report in the court concerned for continuing the investigation into the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended by Act 16 of 2018) and also under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

4. The prosecution case is as follows:

The petitioner, who is the first accused, was the Senior Clerk in the Office of the Scheduled Caste Development (SCD), Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. There are various schemes formulated by the Government for improving the social conditions of persons who belong to scheduled castes. The applications received for monetary relief would be processed in the SCD office and recommendation for sanctioning money would be made to the Scheduled Caste Development Officer in eligible cases. The money sanctioned would be passed for payment by the treasury and it would be transferred to the bank accounts of the beneficiaries through Bill Information Management System. The bank account numbers of the beneficiaries are being entered in the SCD office. The petitioner was the person in the SCD office who accepted the applications and processed the same. Accused 2 to 11 are close relatives or friends of the petitioner. The fourth accused was a Clerk in the SCD office and the fifth and the eleventh accused were scheduled caste promoters. Pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by the accused persons, the petitioner incorporated the bank account numbers of accused 2 to 11 in forged applications and using such applications, he got transferred about seventy lakhs rupees to their bank accounts. Thus, the accused siphoned out money which was intended to be paid to the poor and needy persons and misappropriated it and cheated those persons and also the Government.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary and the statement filed by the investigating officer.

6. True, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to some of the accused to whom the petitioner had transferred the money. But, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is not entitled to get the same relief. The case against the petitioner altogether stands on a different footing.

7. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, that is, his position in relation to the incident and to the victims, is of utmost importance [See: Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai, AIR 2021 SC 2011 : 2021 SCC Online SC 335].

8. The petitioner is the mastermind behind the entire operation conducted for embezzlement of money. It appears that the embezzlement scheme was his brain child. He has allegedly played a prominent role in the matter of facilitating the sanctioning of money on the basis of forged applications. According to the prosecution, he has been successful in siphoning out about seventy lakhs rupees. A deeper probe is required to ascertain the exact amount embezzled by him.

9. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential to have an effective investigation in this case. If the petitioner is equipped with an order under Section 438 of the Code, it would greatly harm the investigation. It would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest would suffer as a consequence.

10. Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation orientated than questioning a suspect who is protected by a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. Success in interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows