Kerala High Court
Mereena Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 15 November, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7016 of 2018
CRIME NO. 1575/2018 OF CHANGANASSERY POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED:
MEREENA VARGHESE,
AGED 32 YEARS,
W/O EINSTEEN SEBASTIAN, ASHIYANA MAROTTICKAL HOUSE,
T.V PURAM P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN IYER
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGANACHERY
POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
SRI AMJAD ALI, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 7016 of 2018 2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicant herein is the 2 nd accused in Crime No.1575 of 2018 of the Changanachery Police Station registered under Sections 420, 403, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. According to the prosecution case, the husband of the applicant herein was working as the Assistant Manager of the Bank of Baroda, Vazhappally branch. The applicant on the other hand was an employee of the Kinder Women's Hospital at Cherthala. In order to avail a loan from the Bank, the applicant and her husband are alleged to have produced a forged salary certificate before the Bank, wherein it is stated that she is drawing a salary of Rs.59,400/- per month. On the strength of the said salary certificate, a loan for a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- was sanctioned by the 1 st accused himself on 10.09.2017. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- was disbursed on 19.09.2017. Using the said amount, property having Bail Appl..No. 7016 of 2018 3 an extent of 6.88 Ares situated at Edamattom was purchased. The said property is mortgaged to the Bank towards collateral security. Later, it was revealed that the salary certificate, which was produced before the Bank for the purpose of loan was forged.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the applicant is entirely innocent of all the allegations. According to the learned counsel, her husband was the Assistant Manager of the Bank and the applicant had entrusted her actual salary certificate to her husband. The learned counsel contended that the husband of the applicant had undergone incarceration for prolonged period.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation conducted till date shows that the applicant herein had acted hand in glove with her husband.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. Having gone through the materials, it appears, prima facie, that the husband of Bail Appl..No. 7016 of 2018 4 the applicant herein, who was the Assistant Manager of the Bank, had manipulated documents for securing the loan. He is involved in other similar offences as well. He was arrested and has undergone substantial period of incarceration. The forged documents have all been seized and husband of the applicant appears to have a major role. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the applicant herein is required for an effective investigation.
7. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
ii) She shall not directly or 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.Bail Appl..No. 7016 of 2018 5
iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
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 DSV/-