BIJI Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SREEKARYAM CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND PRESIDENT, MANAGING COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the first accused in a crime registered at Sreekaryam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. She has filed the above application seeking the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner, a pharmacist, was employed in a medical shop run by a Co-operative Society. Petitioner left the employment when she got an employment in her native place, is the submission of her counsel. She was served with a notice, copy of which is produced as Annexure - I, by the society, informing that on stock verification in the shop goods valued more than Rs. 16 lakhs were found deficient. Later, the society gave a complaint before police imputing breach of criminal trust and cheating by petitioner and two other employees. Crime registered thereof is now pending investigation. De facto complainant society and also its president have been impleaded as additional respondents in the present petition pursuant to orders given for such impleadment.

(2.) I heard learned counsel for de facto complainant and also learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that expired stock in the shops would be carried on from year to year and such bogus stock position was maintained by the society, more particularly by its secretary to draw monthly emoluments on such stock and profits. Petitioner was no way responsible for the deficiency of stock, if any, in the shops of the society and, in fact, no stock verification through the department authorities and fixing of liability thereof had been done by the society, is the submission of learned counsel. Opposing the application learned counsel for de facto complainant would submit that petitioner is culpable for the deficiency of stock noticed after she left service of the society without even handing over the stock as required by rules. Learned Public Prosecutor would also submit that materials gathered by investigating agency give enough room to suspect complicity of accused persons including petitioner in the deficiency of stock of the society as alleged.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has made available the case diary for my perusal. Whatever defences available to petitioner that a stock verification through the department authorities and proceedings thereof have not been complied by the society, at best, can be considered only over the fixing of liability for the loss suffered by the society. So far as the culpability for criminal offences imputed against petitioner and other employees of the society in the loss of property of society they fall strictly within the scope of investigation by police. After going through the case diary and materials so far gathered by the investigating agency, I find, this is not a fit case where petitioners can be extended the discretionary relief of pre-arrest bail. There is reason to suspect that petitioner left the service of the society without even handing over the stocks in the shop as required by rules. Whatever explanations or defences available to her, necessarily, have to be made before the investigating agency. On the facts and circumstances presented, petitioner cannot be granted pre-arrest bail. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner requested for an opportunity to surrender before the investigating officer, fixing date and time to do so by an order of this court. Considering the request made while declining pre-arrest bail, the following directions are issued.