Kerala High Court
Suresh Kumar.G vs The State Of Kerala on 11 March, 2014
Author: Thomas P. Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
TUESDAY,THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/20TH PHALGUNA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 1491 of 2014 (B)
-------------------------------------------
[CRIME NO.1538/2013 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION]
...............
PETITIONER:
-------------------
SURESH KUMAR.G.,
S/O.GOPINATHA MENON, AGED 43 YEARS,MANAGER, SALES (VEHICLES),
M/S.POPULAR MEGHA MOTORS (INDIA) LTD., S.H.MOUNT,
OPP. MANGALAM, M.C.ROAD, PIN-686 006.
BY ADVS.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION - 688 001.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11-03-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------
Bail Appl. No.1491 of 2014
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March 2014
O R D E R
Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1538 of 2013 of the Kottayam West Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.403, 406, 420, 468 and 120B read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the 1st accused applied for a loan to the Indian Overseas Bank (IOB) for the purchase of a vehicle from M/s Popular Mega Motors India Ltd. of which the petitioner is Manager of the Kottayam branch. The 1st accused produced a receipt showing payment of Rs.14,00,000/- as advance to the said company for purchase of the vehicle and the proforma invoice issued by the company for the said purchase showing model of the vehicle to be purchased and the sale consideration. On 30.03.2013 the IOB sanctioned the loan. Rs.13,00,000/- was disbursed as per two demand Bail Appl. No.1491 of 2014 2 drafts. A letter was given by the IOB to the company to note hypothecation over the vehicle in the vehicular documents but that was not done. The 1st accused, in connivance with the petitioner and others purchased a vehicle of lesser price (than shown in the proforma invoice and the application for loan) from the company and without noting the hypothication. That vehicle was sold to the 4th accused also with the connivance of the petitioner and others.
3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. The sales agent of the company had issued a provisional receipt dated 27.03.2013 for Rs.14,00,000/- subject to the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The bank never demanded the computerised receipt. It is true that the company had given a proforma invoice but, the 1st accused claimed that the amount paid to the company as per the demand drafts is his own money. No letter from the IOB was received in the company to note the hypothication. The 1st accused who had other transactions with the company made the company believe that he is purchasing the vehicle with his own money. Bail Appl. No.1491 of 2014 3
4. In response the learned Public Prosecutor submits that the agent of the petitioner along with the 1st accused had collected the letter for noting hypothication from the IOB.
5. As I understand, the offence under Sec.468 of the IPC is incorporated for the reason that as requested by the IOB, hypothication was not noted in the vehicular documents when the 1st accused purchased the vehicle from the company.
6. Having regard to the nature of contentions raised by the petitioner also and other relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. At the same time he has to co-operate with investigation of the case.
In the circumstances I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but, subject to conditions.
The application is allowed as under.
1. Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1538 of 2013 of the Kottayam West Police station on Bail Appl. No.1491 of 2014 4 18.03.2014 at 10.00 am for interrogation.
2. In case interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which the petitioner shall comply.
3. Petitioner shall hand over all the relevant documents which are in his custody, control and possession, relating to the subject matter under enquiry and as may be required by the investigating officer.
4. In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.
5. On such production learned magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:
Bail Appl. No.1491 of 2014 5
a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.
b) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.
c) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.
e) In case any of the above condition is violated, it is open to the investigating officer to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P. JOSEPH
JUDGE
/ True Copy /
NS P.A. To Judge