Kerala HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Cop For Swindling Rs 20 Lakh Traffic Fines, Asks To 'Surrender'
Ernakulam, Kerala: The Kerala High Court on Monday rejected an anticipatory bail petition filed by Santhy Krishnan, a woman Civil Police Officer (CPO) accused of swindling over Rs 20 Lakh between 2009 and 2021 collected by traffic cops as a fine.
According to the prosecution, the petitioner woman had manipulated TR-5 cash books and expenditure voucher slips to deposit fewer amounts than what was collected by police officers as traffic fines, siphoning off the balance amount. The alleged malpractice occurred between 2015 and October 2021. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) said the officer misappropriated a total of Rs 20,90,750 by falsifying records and concealing the discrepancy.
Read Also: Ex-IAS Officer PV Ramesh Calls Karnataka CEO A “Puppet” Of ECI
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the police officer was falsely implicated in the case, claiming it was due to a personal grudge. The lawyer highlighted her status as a widow while pointing out legitimate sources of income, including property transactions and bank loans. It further asserted that the recovery of registers, vouchers, and other documents from her residence was fabricated.
Hearing the case, Justice A Badharudeen stated that it is discernible that the prosecution’s allegation as to the misappropriation of Rs.20,90,750 by the accused is ‘well-established prima facie’ and her bank statement would also fortify the allegations. The judge pointed out that many materials were collected, including the statements of the bank officials, as discussed here above, to show that it was the accused who made the remittance of the fine collected by the banks during the investigation.
Read Also: Why The Bengal Court Convicted RG Kar Culprit With Life Imprisonment
“Thus, the prosecution materials would go to show that the prosecution case is well-made out prima facie and in such a case, as submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, arrest, custodial interrogation, collection of specimen signatures and handwriting of the accused and also where from she obtained this money to spend in excess of her income, are absolutely essential,” Live Law quoted the judge.
The court also noted that Santhy’s expenses, including chitty remittances to multiple financial institutions, far exceeded her declared income, thereby strengthening the prosecution’s case. Notably, the prosecution challenged the petitioner’s arguments with testimonies from several senior assistants of State Bank of India branches in Muvattupuzha and Aramanappady. The testimonies confirmed that Santhy herself regularly remitted traffic fine amounts.
Citing Supreme Court precedence, the court ruled that no circumstances to grant anticipatory bail to the accused existed in this case, adding that it can only be granted in exceptional circumstances, such as clear evidence of false implications or frivolous prosecution in corruption cases. The Court then directed the officer to ‘surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation.’
After recovering the documents, the authorities filed an FIR against Santhy under IPC Sections 465 (Punishment for forgery), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record), 409 (Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent) and 420 (cheating) and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
