Kerala High Court
Rahul R.U vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 5527 OF 2021
CRIME NO.240/2021 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1
RAHUL R.U.
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.G.RAJAN, ANIZHAM HOUSE, PATTAKKULAM,
VEERANKAVU (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695 572.
BY ADV VIVEK VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI A RAJESH SPL PP VACB
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.07.2021, THE COURT ON 02.08.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.5327/2021
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
**********************
B.A.No.5527 of 2021
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2021
-------------------------------------------
ORDER
This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
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 I.P.C.
B.A.No.5327/2021
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 for monetary relief
received from such persons 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 was in charge of receiving the applications and processing
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
B.A.No.5327/2021
persons, the petitioner incorporated the bank account numbers of
accused 2 to 11 in forged applications and using such
applications, he got transferred a total amount of Rs.79,52,693/-
to their bank accounts. Thereafter, with the connivance of
accused 2 to 11, the petitioner withdrew that amount and
misappropriated it. Thus, the accused siphoned out money which
was intended to be paid to the poor and needy persons and
cheated those persons and also the Government.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
6. The petitioner had filed an application seeking
anticipatory bail in the case. As per Annexure-I order, this Court
rejected the prayer for granting anticipatory bail but directed the
petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer.
Accordingly, the petitioner surrendered before the investigating
officer and he was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional
court on 09.07.2021 and he was remanded to judicial custody.
Subsequently, the petitioner was remanded to police custody
also.
B.A.No.5327/2021
7. True, this Court had 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
bail. The case against the petitioner altogether stands on a
different footing.
8. 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
v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai : AIR 2021 SC 2011 : 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 335).
9. The petitioner was the mastermind behind the entire
operation conducted for embezzlement of money. He had
allegedly played a pivotal role in facilitating the swindling of
public funds on the basis of forged applications. According to the
prosecution, he has been successful in siphoning out
Rs.79,52,693/- which was intended to be used for the welfare of
persons who belong to scheduled castes.
B.A.No.5327/2021
10. The investigation of the case is at the nascent stage. A
deeper probe is required with regard to the embezzlement of
money by the petitioner. The evidence collected after obtaining
custody of the petitioner has to be evaluated by the investigating
officer to ascertain the real ramifications of the various
transactions conducted.
11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well
settled. The general principles regarding granting or refusing bail
are enumerated in several judgments of the Apex Court.
Generally, the following matters are to be considered in granting
or refusing bail to a person accused of a non-bailable offence (1)
The nature of the offence (2) The severity of the punishment
which conviction will entail (3) The character, behaviour, means
and standing of the accused (4) The circumstances which are
peculiar to the accused (5) The status and position of the
accused in relation to the victim or the complainant (6)
Reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused
during the trial (7) Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with (8) The larger interests of the public or the
B.A.No.5327/2021
State or the society (9) Likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice (10) Absence or presence of materials in support of the
accusation (11) Likelihood of the offence being repeated (12)
Frivolity in prosecution.
12. Economic offences, having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds, need to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences (See Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. CBI : (2013) 7 SCC 439 : AIR 2013 SC 1933). An
economic offence is committed with cool calculation and
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the
consequence to the community (See State of Gujarat v.
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal : (1987) 2 SCC 364 : AIR 1987
SC 1321).
13. Economic offences have serious repercussions on the
development of the society as a whole. The entire community
would be aggrieved if the economic offenders, who ruin the
economy of the State, are not brought to book in a proper
manner.
B.A.No.5327/2021
14. 'Bail is the rule and jail is the exception' is the well
established principle but competing forces present in the facts
and circumstances of each case have to be measured before
enlarging a person on bail. Socio-economic offences have deep
impact affecting the moral fiber of the society and it is a matter
needs to be considered seriously (See State of Bihar v. Amit
Kumar @ Bachcha Rai : AIR 2017 SC 2487).
15. While considering the prayer for granting bail, a balance
has to be struck between two factors, namely, prejudice to the
free, fair and full investigation and prevention of harassment,
humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused in jail.
16. The petitioner is the kingpin of an economic offence of
huge magnitude. Unlike the other accused in the case, it cannot
be found that the case against him could be proved mainly by
documentary evidence only. Ocular evidence of persons who were
working in the same office would also be material. Influencing or
intimidating material witnesses by the petitioner cannot be ruled
out at this stage of the investigation.
B.A.No.5327/2021
17. The application filed by the investigating officer before
the jurisdictional court seeking custody of the petitioner shows
that, on registration of the case, the petitioner had absconded
and he had gone to Delhi.
18. This is a case of fraud of large magnitude where public
money has been swindled by the petitioner in conspiracy with
other accused. The offences alleged against the petitioner are
very serious involving deep-rooted planning in which huge
financial loss is caused to the State exchequer.
19. In the aforesaid circumstances, releasing the petitioner
on bail at this stage would certainly hamper the investigation.
The prayer for granting bail to the petitioner is liable to be
rejected.
Consequently, the application is dismissed.
(sd/-) R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr
B.A.No.5327/2021
APPENDIX IN B.A.NO.5527 OF 2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE -1 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2021 IN
B.A.NO.3864/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE-2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CUSTODY APPLICATION DATED
09.07.2021
ANNEXURE-3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2021 IN
CRL.M.P.NO.590/2021 PASSED BY THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL
JUDGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ANNEXURE-4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CUSTODY APPLICATION DATED
12.07.2021.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
NIL
TRUE COPY
PS TO JUDGE
