Kerala High Court
J.K.John vs State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2017
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/26TH SRAVANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 3376 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO.527/2016 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
....
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2,3,4,6 & 7:
--------------------------------
1. J.K.JOHN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH,
KARIYIL HOUSE, K.K. ROAD,
EAST CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. K.A.SEBASTIAN,
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ANTHONY,
KALLINGAL HOUSE, WEST CHALAKUDY,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3. JOJI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS,
VELLANIKKARAN HOUSE, KOMBARA,
IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
4. C.L.JOHNSON,
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.LONAPPAN,
CHAKKACHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEAR CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
5. C.L. THRESYAMMA,
AGED 66 YEARS, D/O.LONAPPAN,
CHAKKACHAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEAR CHRIST COLLEGE, IRINJALAKUDA,
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SMT.E.U.DHANYA
SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS
--2--
--2--
Bail Appl..No. 3376 of 2017 ()
-------------------------------
RESPONDENT/STATE:
-----------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SAJJU
ADDL.R2 BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADV.SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-08-2017, THE COURT ON 17-08-2017 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
mbr/
SUNIL THOMAS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
B.A.No.3376 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2017
O R D E R
The accused Nos.2,3,4,6 & 7 in Crime No.527/2016 of Chalakudy Police Station for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC apprehending arrest, seek bail.
2. The complaint was laid by the defacto complainant alleging irregularities against the first accused, a company dealing with kuries and financial transactions. The remaining accused are stated to be the managing director, directors and other persons connected with the activities of the Kuri company. It was stated that, 8th petitioner in the complaint who was the daughter of the first complainant, was the shareholder as well as a former director of the company. It was alleged that accused Nos. 4 and 6 were not the directors of the company and were employed elsewhere. It was alleged that, they were the benamis of the accused 5 & 7. It was further alleged in the complaint that, the accused committed various frauds in the running of the chitties. It was further alleged that in the case of 47 kuries, after the remittance of one or two installments by the respective subscribers, loans were issued on the basis of the passbook. It was alleged that the loan so allotted were diverted to the account of accused Nos. 4 and 6 and the amounts were collected by them. There was no proper auditing. BA No.3376/2017 2 In the case of chitties subscribed by the complainants, even after completion of the period of subscription, the chitty amounts were not paid to the complainants.
3. On the basis of the above complaint laid before the police, initial investigation was conducted by the police and it was noticed that several civil suits were pending between the parties. Holding that those civil disputes related to the subject matter of that complaint, report was filed closing the matter as one of civil nature. Thereafter, a complaint was filed before the Superintendent of police(Rural). Further investigation was ordered and the matter was entrusted to the Crime Branch.
4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the institution was running for the past several years and that absolutely no irregularity was committed by the company or its Directors. It was alleged that, the complainant had personal grievance against the running of the establishment and several civil suits were filed. The present complaint was the subject matter of the civil suits also. Even assuming that any irregularity is committed, the 8th complainant cannot escape from the liability, because she was also a director of the first accused company.
5. Investigation has indicated that few irregularities were found out. Few persons had given statement that they have not joined the chitty and documents have not been signed by them, though apparently there were materials to show that chitties were BA No.3376/2017 3 opened in their name. Whether it was done with the knowledge of the company or by other persons is a matter yet to be investigated., Entire transaction is borne by records. Civil Suits are also pending at the instance of the defacto complainant. It is pertinent to note that no other subscribers has come forward with an allegation that there were financial irregularities in the running of kuri transactions.
6. In the above circumstances,I feel that, custodial interrogation of the petitioners herein cannot be ordered at this stage. Hence, bail can be granted to them subject to the following conditions:
(i).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 released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.
(ii). They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant and witnesses.
iii). They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation, which includes production of all records, registers, bank pass books and access to the computer software and hardware, which are related to the financial transactions entered into by the first accused and BA No.3376/2017 4 are found to be in possession of the petitioners herein, and are called upon by the investigating officer to be produced.
Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS Judge dpk /true copy/ PS to Judge.