The discretion for granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases, considering the nature and gravity of the accusation, the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice, and the interference of anticipatory bail in the sphere of investigation.

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1646/2023 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered against the accused (two in number), for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the accused with an intention of embezzling an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- sanctioned for conducting a training programme at SAMETI Training Centre under the Department of Agricultural Development and Farmers’ Welfare , transferred the amount to the bank account of the second accused on 29.5.2020, instead of transferring it to the account of the Director of the SAMETI. The second accused has received the said amount and refused to return the amount to the defacto complainant. The accused have caused unjust loss to the Government and have got unjust gain. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4. Heard Sri.S.Jathin Das, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against her. She has been falsely implicated in the crime. The petitioner has been working as a Senior Accounts Officer in the Directorate of Agriculture for the last 25 years with an unblemished record. It was the cheque processing section of the department which wrongly entered the name of the second accused and submitted the bill to the treasury. It is only in discharge of the petitioner’s official functions that she approved the bill. The petitioner has no complicity in the matter. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents. She is a law abiding citizen. The petitioner is willing to co-operate with the investigation. The petitioner is also a cancer patient and is undergoing treatment at the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. Hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

6. The Investigating Officer has filed an affidavit dated

2.2.2024, inter alia, stating that in the investigation it has been revealed that the bill was processed by a Senior Clerk and verified by a Junior Superintendent and, thereafter, finally approved by the petitioner. The approval was made through a software and physical copy was signed by the petitioner. Since the bill was passed in the treasury on 19.1.2018 and the account of SAMETI was closed earlier, the amount was returned to the suspense account in the said office. The money was transferred to the bank account of the second accused after a lapse of twenty months. The money which comes to the suspense account can be transferred directly to another account by the DDO. During the relevant point of time, the petitioner was the DDO. Even though the amount was transferred to the account of the second accused, and repeated requests were made to her to return the money, she has not done the same. The Investigation is at its initial stage. Further evidence has to be collected. The petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary and recovery is to be effected. If the petitioner is granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it would hamper with the investigation.

Hence the application may be dismissed.

7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualised for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of eac