Kerala High Court
Pushpangathan vs State Of Kerala on 19 January, 2021
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.7314 OF 2020
CRIME NO.252/2020 OF ATHIRAPPILLY POLICE STATION, Thrissur
PETITIONER/S:
PUSHPANGATHAN
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O MADHAVAN
PULIKKAL HOUSE, VETILAPPARA DESOM,
ATHIRAPPILY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680724
BY ADV. SHRI.RAPHAEL THEKKAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ATHIRAPILLY POLICE STATION
THRISSUR, PIN- 680724.
3 ASHOKAN
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O RAMAN, OULATT HOUSE, VETILAPPARA DESOM,
ATHIRAPPILY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680724.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.PRABHU K.N.
R3 BY ADV. SHRI.MANUMON A.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.JAYAN KUTTICHAKKU
SMT.V.SREEJA -PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7314 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Dated this the 19th day of January 2021 This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.252/2020 of Athirapilly Police Station, Thrissur, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant and the applicant along with another started a joint venture and a resort in a property which was allegedly obtained on lease from Vettilapara Ex-Service men Colony Scheduled Caste Trust and the resort was started under the name and style 'Athirapily Ex-Jawan Resort' on the Ten Cents of property. It is stated that the de facto complainant had also contributed money for the purpose of starting the resort. The applicant Bail Appl..No.7314 OF 2020 3 and another person named Sajeevan were also contributors to the said resort. A building was allegedly constructed and the specific allegation against the applicant is that there was a joint account started in the name of all the three persons who were parties to the agreement and without the consent of the others the applicant had allegedly withdrawn about Rs.15 lakhs above from that account after forging the signatures of the de facto complainant with the assistance of the 2nd accused who was the Manager of the resort.
3. The applicant states that the allegations are not true. The applicant has not misappropriated any amount and there is no forgery as alleged. He was the earlier President of the Panchayath and a person having a reputation. The de facto complainant is a joint signatory to the operation of the account and all transactions are very transpired and there is no act attracting an Bail Appl..No.7314 OF 2020 4 offence of forgery or misappropriation as alleged. The applicant is the sole breadwinner of his family and he is willing to co-operate with the investigation, there is no possibility of his absconding and custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required, even if the allegations made by the de facto complainant in this private complaint regarding the act of forgery is to relieve it has to be established by expert opinion for which the applicant is willing to co-operate and the cheques which were allegedly containing the forged signature of the de facto complainant can be examined and evidence against the applicant can be collected in that manner. Under the circumstances, the applicant seeks pre- arrest bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel appearing for the de facto Bail Appl..No.7314 OF 2020 5 complainant.
5. The applicant admittedly has no other criminal antecedents. The applicant and the de facto complainant and others who were closely associated belong to the same place had started a venture which according to the applicant, even though was successful in the initial time, subsequently there was slum due to the corona pandemic as sufficient occupants were not therein. The building was completed expending money and adjoining the account is also been operated which can only be operated with the assistance of the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant's wife is also actively involved in the alleged conducting of business. The applicant states that the entire burden cannot be solely put on the shoulders of the applicant and therefore he seeks pre-arrest bail.
6. After having heard the submissions on both Bail Appl..No.7314 OF 2020 6 sides, I find that custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation and there is no possibility of his absconding. He is willing to submit for the verification of the signatures which were allegedly forged by him.
7. In the result the application is allowed and the applicant is surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and on the following conditions;
1.He shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.
2.He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.
Bail Appl..No.7314 OF 2020 7
3.He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.
In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE SPK