O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section

438 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No.408/2021 of the Karuvarakundu Police Station under Sections 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: The accused was employed as an Office Attendant in the Sub Treasury of Karuvarakundu. Smt.A.N.Saraswathy Amma is a pensioner. She was drawing the pension from the Sub Treasury, Karuvarakundu. On 20.01.2021, she went to the treasury to update the entries in the passbook issued to her in respect of the savings bank account in her name in the treasury. The details were furnished to her from the treasury on that day. On the next day, she went to the treasury and made a complaint to the Sub Treasury Officer that there was deficit of about three lakhs rupees in her account in the treasury. On verification of the records by the Sub Treasury Officer, it was revealed that a total amount of Rs.2,88,550/- had been transferred from the account of the pensioner to the savings bank accounts of the accused, through 27 online transactions. It was further revealed that, without the consent or knowledge of the pensioner, the accused had entered his mobile phone number in the KYC and updated it with that number and thereafter, without the consent or knowledge of the pensioner, he transferred the amount to his savings bank accounts by using the OTP number received in his mobile phone.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the pensioner is an old lady, an octogenarian, and she had no mobile phone or ATM card and that the petitioner used to help her in all matters. It is submitted that it was on the direction of the pensioner that the petitioner gave the mobile phone number in the KYC and that he had given the entire amount drawn from the account of the pensioner to her. The petitioner has produced a copy of the affidavit allegedly sworn to by the pensioner before a Notary.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor would submit that only on conducting a deep probe it could be revealed whether the amount was withdrawn by the accused from the account of the pensioner with her consent. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that the pensioner is now residing in New Delhi and she could not be contacted by the investigating officer to ascertain the genuineness of the affidavit allegedly sworn to by her before the Notary.

7. The case diary reveals that deficit of the amount in the account of the pensioner in the treasury was revealed on

21.01.2021. On that day itself, on verification of the records in the treasury, it was found out that an amount of Rs.2,88,550/- from the account of the pensioner had been transferred to the savings bank accounts of the petitioner. The Sub Treasury Officer had made a complaint on 25.01.2021 to the police in the matter but no case was registered against the petitioner by the police on the ground that the pensioner gave statement to the police that she had no complaint in the matter.

8. The averments in the affidavit dated 23.01.2021 sworn to by the pensioner, that she had voluntarily given the mobile phone number of the petitioner for the purpose of the transactions to be conducted in her account in the treasury and that she had received the entire amount and that she has got no complaint against the petitioner, cannot be swallowed as such. If that be so, it eludes comprehension why the pensioner made a complaint to the Sub Treasury Officer on 21.01.2021 with regard to the deficit of the amount in her account. Whether the petitioner had in any manner threatened or influenced or persuaded the pensioner to withdraw the complaint made against him is a matter which requires investigation. It is to be ascertained whether the af