Kerala High Court
Rajeesh vs State Of Kerala on 27 July, 2020
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.850 OF 2020
CRIME NO.18/2020 OF Pampa Police Station , Pathanamthitta
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
RAJEESH,
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O.RAVI, ELLACHIKKADAN HOUSE, MATTATHUR VILLAGE,
NULUVALLIY DESOM, CHEMBUCHIRA PO, CHALAKUDY THALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.J.POLLY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
(INSPECTOR OF PAMPA POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2 ADDL.R2 PRASAD V.S,
AGED 87 YEARS
S/O SANKUNNY, VELOOR HOUSE, KODAKARA DESOM AND
VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN-680684.
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5/3/2020 IN CRL.MA
1/2020 IN BA-850/2020.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN.T
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No. 850 OF 2020 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
B.A.No.850 of 2020
-------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2020
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) was heard through Video Conference.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.18 of 2020 of Pampa Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that during the period of Sabarimala season Rs.12 lakhs of the defacto complainant was taken by the petitioner who is alleged to be an employee of his shop. According to the prosecution, petitioner was the Manager-cum-Collection agent of the shop owned by the defacto complainant.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
B.A.No. 850 OF 2020 3
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a silent partner of the business and he is not the manager-cum-collection agent as alleged by the prosecution. He is ready to abide any conditions if this Court grant him bail.
6. The Public Prosecutor opposed the Bail Application. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that huge amount is misappropriated by the petitioner. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that he is a silent partner of the business. The defacto complainant was also impleaded in this case. The counsel for the defacto complainant also submitted that the petitioner is only an employee under him and he misappropriated huge amount.
7. According to the prosecution, the amount taken by the petitioner is deposited in the name of the wife of the petitioner in a bank at Sannithanam.
8. After hearing both sides, I am not inclined to allow this Bail Application. The case of the petitioner is that he is a silent partner of the business. If that is the case, there will be document to show the same. The petitioner claims that he is B.A.No. 850 OF 2020 4 having the documents. But the same is not produced before this Court. According to the Public Prosecutor, this Court on an earlier occasion directed the petitioner to produce the same. But the petitioner has not produced the same. It is a matter to be investigated by the investigating officer for which custodial interrogation may be necessary. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
9. Moreover, the jurisdiction to grant bail under Sec.438 Cr.P.C has to be exercised on the well settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (AIR 2019 SC 4198). The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exists to resort to the extraordinary jurisdiction.
10. It is true that, there is no hard and fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant anticipatory bail. Each case has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of that case. In the light of the general principles laid down in the B.A.No. 850 OF 2020 5 above judgment and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case in which the petitioner can be released on bail under Sec.438 Cr.P.C. Hence this Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE al/-