Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Present on 13 March, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 1496 of 2018
CRIME NO. 983/2017 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.
1 K.RAVEENDRAN
S/O LATE. BALAKRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
"TATWAMASI", PLOT NO.9,
BOMBAY COLONY, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN. 679103.
2 HARIHARAN P.C
S/O LATE PUTHANPURA CHAMI, AGED 67 YEARS,
SREEKRISHNA NIVAS, PLOT NO.2, BOMBAY COLONY,
PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN. 679103.
3 UNNIKRISHNAN PANCHARATH
S/O LATE. T.A NARAYANAN NAIR, AGED 69 YEARS,
"ASWATHI", AISHWARYA GARDENS, EAST MANISSERY PO,
OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN.679521.
4 RADHAKRISHNAN
S/O LATE M. GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS,
"SOPANAM, H.P COLONY, PALAPPURAM PO,
OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN.679103
BY ADV.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT.:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN. 679121.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IAP
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A.No.1496 of 2018
--------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2018
ORDER
1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 to 3 and 5 in Crime No.983 of 2017 of the Ottapalam Police Station, registered under Section 420 of the IPC.
3.A group of persons from Ottappalam in the State of Kerala, who had spent their life working in various reputed companies in and around Mumbai got together and decided to set up a residential colony at Ottappalam. The de facto complainant as well as the petitioners were among the 45 persons who shared the concept of common living. For effectuating their wish, property having an extent of 7.92 Acres were purchased and each plot was registered in the name of individuals. It was felt that considerable money could be saved if the construction was carried out jointly as the B.A.No.1496 of 2018 2 building materials could be purchased in bulk and at wholesale rates. Consequently, a society was formed and it was registered under the Societies Registration Act under the name and style as 'Bombay Colony Residents Welfare Association'. An account was also opened in the State Bank of Travancore, Ottappalam. The petitioners 1 to 3 were elected as the office bearers of the Society and the 4 th petitioner was a paid employee. The construction was carried out by the Society for the benefit of the members. According to the informant, he was told that if he paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs, a liveable house would be handed over to him. In terms of the said understanding, he had transferred a total sum of Rs 19.93 Lakhs to the accounts of the Society. However, when he returned back in the year 2015, he realised to his agony that the construction was nowhere complete. He instituted a suit before the Munsiff's Court and a Commissioner was appointed. According to him, the petitioners had received a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs in excess from the complainant. He later terminated the arrangement with the petitioners and took over the construction himself. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioners had B.A.No.1496 of 2018 3 intentionally deceived him and induced him to part with substantial sums of money and failed to carry out the construction as promised.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are without any semblance of truth. It is urged by the learned counsel that the 1 st petitioner had retired as an Income Tax Officer, the 2nd petitioner had retired as Finance Manager from the Tata Motors, Pune, the 3rd petitioner had retired as Manager (Sales) from Tata Motors and the 4th petitioner had retired as an Office Assistant from CCRAS, an autonomous body of the Central Government. They are all highly respected persons with no criminal background or antecedents. The Association had not entered into any agreement with any of the members and they were rendering only voluntary service. The construction was carried out on a no profit no loss basis and was supervised by qualified persons. The accounts were also duly audited by a Chartered Accountant. All the houses were completed in the year 2015 and except for the de facto complainant there were no complaints from any quarters. Insofar as the de facto complainant is concerned, he has B.A.No.1496 of 2018 4 already instituted a suit for realization of money which is pending. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC will not be attracted.
5. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the case diary.
6.After going through the materials produced by the learned counsel it appears that the dispute revolves around the construction of a residential building which was undertaken by the association in which the petitioners herein are the members. Furthermore a civil suit has already been instituted by the de facto complainant seeking realisation of the amount.
7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, stage of investigation and attendant facts, it does not appear to me that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessitous for an effective investigation. I am inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
8.In the result, this petition is allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.
i).The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be B.A.No.1496 of 2018 5 released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.
ii)The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.
iii)The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iv)The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE IAP //True Copy\\ P.A to Judge