Kerala High Court
Vishnu Prasad K.N vs State Of Kerala on 21 January, 2016
Author: A. Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 464 of 2016 ()
------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1840/2015 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT
-------------------
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS. 4 & 5 :
------------------------------------------------------
1. VISHNU PRASAD K.N.,
KUNDUVALAPIL (H), MANNAMPETTA,
VATTANATHAR P.O., THRISSUR-680 302.
2. ALINAVAS P.,
FLAT NO.1, CYBER PARK,
ENGINEERING COLLEGE POST
THRISSUR - 680 009.
BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
BY ADVS.SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :
----------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRSENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED
----------------------------------
*ADDL.R2. SIVARAJAN A.R.,
AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. RAMAN KUTTY
ARUKETTY HOUSE, KUNDALIYUR P.O.,
THRISSUR - 680 616.
*ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.M.A. NO. 596/2016
DATED 21/01/2016.
R1 BY ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI. T. ASAF ALI
ADDL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2016,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
A. HARIPRASAD, J.
===================
B.A. No.464 OF 2016
=======================
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2016
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in Thrissur East Police Station Crime No.1841/2015 registered under Sections 401, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are accused 4 and 5 in the above crime.
2. It is alleged that the accused 1 and 2 withdrew 35 lakhs and 30 lakhs respectively without the knowledge and consent of the Director Board of a Company by name Punarjani Securities Limited and they fabricated a seal of the Indian Consulate at Dubai. Further they forged the signature of the consulate on proxy forms intended to be used in an election to the Board of Directors of the Company.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and also the learned Director General of B.A. No.464 OF 2016 -2- Prosecution.
4. Petitioners' case along with that of other accused had been considered by this Court in B.A. No.5035/2015. This Court, after an elaborate consideration, dismissed the plea for anticipatory bail on the accused. Learned Director General of Prosecution opposed the application contending that the question to be investigated into is regarding the fabrication and use of the seal of Government of India and creation of documents relating to the Indian Consulate.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a change of circumstance and petitioners' case stand on a different footing. According to him, the petitioners did not use the proxy forms on getting information from the independent Chairman deputed by the Company Law Board that there are disputes regarding the genuineness of the proxy form.
6. According to the contention of the learned Senior counsel they are persons locally available and one of them is an employee of Aswini Hospital. This B.A. No.464 OF 2016 -3- submission is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant. According to the contention of the learned Directer General of Prosecution, the prime accused have left India after dismissal of the anticipatory bail application. For want of presence of the accused, the investigation is not progressing. I am of the view that there is some force in the submission of the learned Senior counsel that case of these petitioners is slightly different from the others. On getting information about the dispute regarding the genuineness of the proxy forms, they did not participate in the election. Learned Director General of Prosecution raised a contention that the materials in the case diary do not show as to whether they are proxy holders or witnesses in the proxy form. All these matters can be resolved only in a proper investigation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I feel that following directions can be made in this case for the effective investigation of the case.
B.A. No.464 OF 2016 -4-
1. The petitioner shall in two weeks appear before the investigating officer. After questioning them, the investigating officer shall produce them before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day.
2. The petitioners can move the court below for bail and in that event the learned Magistrate shall consider the matter with notice to the Public Prosecutor.
3. If circumstances so require, the investigating agency may move the court below for getting the accused for a short custody and if they do not feel so, the court below shall consider the bail application on merits as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE SKV