Kerala High Court
Maya Muraleedharan vs Public Prosecutor on 9 February, 2021
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
Bail Appl..No.3704 OF 2020
CRIME NO.2510/2018 OF Chengannur Police Station, Alappuzha
PETITIONER/S:
MAYA MURALEEDHARAN
AGED 54 YEARS
MARUKARA VEEDU, POOVATHOOR P.O,
KOIPURAM, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
689531
BY ADVS.
SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON
SMT.NIMMY JOHNSON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
682031
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA
689 121
3 ADDL.R. SADASIVAN PILLAI
S/O ACHUTHAN PILLAI, PUTHUVANGATTIL, PULIYOOR P.O.,
CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/07/2020 IN
CRL.M.A. NO.1/2020
SMT.V.SREEJA-PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.3704 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Dated this the 9th day of February 2021 This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.
The applicant is one of the accused in Crime No.2510/2018 of Chengannur Police Station, for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant had dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver sums of Rs.8,00,000/- on 23.05.2014 and further amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.05.2014 as deposits in the Kerala Housing Finance Limited (KHFL), Chengannur branch.
3. The applicant states that she is innocent and that she is only a paid employee of the company working as Branch Manager and it was her duty to induce customers to deposit money in the company. The company became insolvent, insolvency Bail Appl..No.3704 OF 2020 3 proceedings are pending before the Kochi Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal. In consequence to the insolvency of the company, rateable distribution to the clients of the amounts due to them has to be made. The applicant has not been enriched by the alleged deposits of the clients including the de facto complainant. Therefore, she seeks pre-arrest bail.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant was served with notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C and in consequence to that she had appeared before the investigating officer and been subjected to interrogation. She is co-operating with the investigation and there is no intention to arrest her or subject to custodial interrogation.
6. After hearing the submissions on both Bail Appl..No.3704 OF 2020 4 sides, I find that the applicant is not likely to abscond and there is nothing to be recovered from her. Therefore the applicant is not to be subjected to custodial interrogation.
7. In the result the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of her being arrested, she 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 investigating officer and on the following conditions;
1. She shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.
2.She shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.
3.She shall not get involved in similar Bail Appl..No.3704 OF 2020 5 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