Anticipatory bail was denied due to serious allegations of public fund misappropriation involving forgery and conspiracy by public officers.

ORDER

The 4^th accused in Crime No.VC-01/2024/SIU-1 of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Poojapura, registered on09.02.2024, is the petitioner herein.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.

3. The prosecution case is that the Mayor of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation lodged a complaint alleging misappropriation of funds by the accused involved therein and accordingly, Crime No.721/2022 of Museum Police Station was registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC ’ hereinafter). Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by the VACB, since Prevention of Corruption Act offences also found involved. Now, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B r/w 34 of the as well as under Section 13 (1)(a) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . The allegations, as per the FIR, in brief disclose that the 1^st accused, while working as Industries Extension Officer (IEO) under the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, was responsible for implementing development schemes and was entrusted with the authority to grant loan subsidies to women belonging to the Scheduled Caste category as the implementing officer of the project. He was also in charge of receiving applications and granting benefits to members of Scheduled Caste women’s groups. The 1^st accused, in criminal conspiracy with others, fraudulently acted upon forged documents produced by accused Nos.2 to 20, used the same as genuine, and misappropriated funds by creating false records, manipulating the list of eligible beneficiaries under the scheme, and disbursing subsidies to fake beneficiaries who were not entitled to receive any benefits during the financial year 2021 - 2022. Despite having knowledge that the documents were fabricated, the 1^st accused misused his official position and conspired with the other accused with the intention of securing unlawful gain for them. It is alleged that they misappropriated a total sum of ₹24 Lakh, thereby causing corresponding loss to the Government and unlawful gain to themselves. Thus, the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences by the accused.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is innocent. It is further submitted that the Industries Extension Officer (IEO), through a letter, instructed the 4^th accused to adjust the subsidy amounts against the loans availed by the beneficiary groups, wherein it is stated that “we have released the subsidy amount of ₹1,17,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lakhs only) to the following groups as per the loan sanction letter given by your bank. The bank can adjust this subsidy amount as per the bank norms ……” (Annexure R1(a)). The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was arrested along with other accused and produced before the learned Special Judge, but the learned Special Judge set them free finding that the arrest was not in accordance with law. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and he had no role in this crime and what he had done is his official duty and therefore, he deserves anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail and submitted that in this case, the involvement of the petitioner by transferring the amount in the name of groups as instructed by the 1^st accused and sudden transfer of the same in the name of the 2^nd accused, which in fact, a fake firm so as to facilitate misappropriation could be gathered, prima facie. It was further submitted that, in such circumstances, the grant of anticipatory bail