Kerala High Court
M.K. Ismail vs State Of Kerala on 10 October, 2013
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 5082 of 2013
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 256/2013 OF IDUKKI POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT
...
PETITIONER:ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------
1. M.K. ISMAIL, S/O.KASIM, AGED 70 YEARS,
MOITHEENPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTHIRAKKALLU, VIMALAGIRI PO.,
THANKANAY VILLAGE.
2. SHEBEER ISMAIL, S/O.M.K.ISMAIL, AGED 34 YEARS,
MOITHEENPARAMBIL HOUSE, THADIAMPADU PO, IDUKKI.
3. JUMAILA, W/O.THAYIBU, AGED 36 YEARS,
MANKUZHICKAL HOUSE, CHERANI KAKRA,
NARUKARA VILLAGE, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:STATE:
-------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME NO.256/2013 OF IDUKKI POLICE STATION,
IDUKKI DISTRICT).
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
IDUKKI POLICE STATION,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602. (CRIME NO.256/2013 OF IDUKKI POLICE
STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT)
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Kss
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
B.A. No.5082 of 2013
====================================
Dated this the 10th day of October, 2013
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused, in Crime No.256 of 2013 of Idukki Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 120B read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Case is that the 1st petitioner availed cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.45 lakhs from the Union Bank of India on the security of hypothecation of stock in trade and other collateral security. When the Officer of the said Bank inspected the godown of the 1st petitioner, he found deficit in the stock in trade and noticed that the goods had been pledged with another Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that allegation of cheating, etc., is false and that no offence is made out. It is pointed out that the amount due to the de facto complainant is otherwise secured by the collateral security given by petitioners 2 and 3. When there was an attempt to proceed against the said property, the 1st petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ernakulam (for short, "the DRT") which, by order dated 03.09.2013 allowed the 1st petitioner to discharge the B.A. No.5082 of 2013 -: 2 :- liability to the de facto complainant by payment in installments and that installments up to September, 2013 is remitted. Learned counsel submits that the 1st petitioner is prepared to discharge the entire liability in the way directed in the said order. A copy of the order passed by the DRT is given to me for perusal.
4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
5. Having regard to the circumstances stated and considering the submissions made by the counsel, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners but subject to conditions.
Application is disposed of as under:
(i) Petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.256 of 2013 of Idukki Police Station on 22.10.2013 at 10.00 for interrogation.
(ii) In case interrogation is not completed on that day, petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer on other day/days and time as directed by him.
(iii) In case arrest of petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on the date of arrest.
(iv) On such production the petitioners shall be released B.A. No.5082 of 2013 -: 3 :- on bail on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions.
(a) The 1st petitioner shall continue to pay the installments (without fail) as directed in the order dated 03.09.2013 on I.A. No.2591 of 2013 in S.A.No.616 of 2013 of the DRT until the entire liability to the de facto complainant is discharged.
(b) Petitioners 2 and 3 shall not dispose of or encumber the property offered by them as collateral security to the de facto complainant until the entire liability of the 1st petitioner to the de facto complainant is discharged.
(c) Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when directed by him for interrogation.
(d) Petitioners shall produce a copy of this order before the Sub Registrar concerned within a week from the date of their executing the bail bond and file statement before the learned magistrate within one week therefrom stating that copy of the order has been produced before the Sub Registrar concerned. B.A. No.5082 of 2013 -: 4 :-
(v) This order will not stand in the way of the officers concerned continuing investigation of the case and submitting appropriate final report.
(vi) In case petitioners violate any of the above conditions, it is open to the investigating officer or the de facto complainant to move the jurisdictional magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC
100).
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv