Kerala High Court
Binesh Babu .V.P @ Bineesh.R.Nair vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2017
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 7208 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1424/2017 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION , TRISSUR.
-------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:
----------------------------------------------
BINESH BABU .V.P @ BINEESH.R.NAIR,
S/O DAMODARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT VADAKKEPARAMEL HOUSE,
KONDAZHAY PO, THRISSUR. PIN.679106.
BY ADVS.SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR
SRI.GEORGE BRISTON
SRI.V.P.PRASANTH
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT.:
------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,.KOCHI.31.
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED
2. SONY JOSEPH, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.JOSEPH,MANAGER, ITL TOURS & TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED,
ITL HOUSE, KOCHI BRANCH, M.G.ROAD,
RAVIPURAM,KOCHI-16.
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.11.2017 IN
CRL.M.A.NO.11599/2017 IN B.A.NO.7208/2017.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.UDAYA KUMAR.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
SRI.JOSE ANTONY
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 27-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
TS
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A.No.7208 of 2017
--------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2017
ORDER
1.This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1424 of 2017 of the Ollur police station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 405, 408, 409, 415, 420 & 120(B) read with Sec.34 of the IPC.
3.The aforesaid Crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by one Sony Joseph, who is the Manager of ITL Tours and Travels Pvt. Ltd., Kochi. The petitioner is working as the Accounts Manager of the Complainant Company in its Kochi Branch. According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein with intent to cheat the de facto complainant gave credit facility to the 1st accused, who is a sub agent of the de facto complainant ignoring the directives and company B.A.No. 7208 of 2017 2 practices and thus caused wrongful loss to the company. It is also alleged that the petitioner herein who was entrusted with the dominion of the funds of the de facto complainant, dishonestly misappropriated the same and converted it to his own use .
4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant who got himself impleaded as additional 2nd respondent and the learned public prosecutor.
5.It is submitted that the petitioner herein was merely the accounts manager and for the fact that the sub agent has defaulted in his payment, the petitioner cannot be proceeded against. It is submitted that the computer systems are networked with easy access to all concerned and the transactions entered into by the petitioner is monitored by the senior managers. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is being victimised for the default of the sub agent and prays for B.A.No. 7208 of 2017 3 issuance of appropriate orders.
6.The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant who submits that the petitioner has acted hand in glove with the 1st accused and have managed to cause huge loss to the de facto complainant. It is submitted that though proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner herein, he has entered the establishment of the complainant and have attempted to manipulate the accounts to his advantage.
7.I have considered the submissions advanced in both sides. I have gone through the case diary as well as the materials produced. It appears to me that there are disputes between the de facto complainant and the sub agent in connection with the amounts due towards tickets purchased. The de facto complainant has himself admitted that it was usual practice to provide credit to their sub agents.
8.Having considered all the relevant aspects and taking B.A.No. 7208 of 2017 4 note of the nature of transactions, it doesn't appear to me that this is a case in which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted. I am of the view that necessary conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution and to see that the investigation is proceeded with in a free and fair manner.
9. In the result this application will stand allowed on the following conditions.
i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation.
Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
iv)The petitioner shall not directly or B.A.No. 7208 of 2017 5 indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. The petitioner shall not , during the pendency of the investigation enter the office of the defacto complainant or access the computers of the defacto complainant.
v)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
vi) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE IAP