Kerala High Court
T.P.Shivadas Fcs vs The State Of Kerala on 18 August, 2015
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/21ST KARTHIKA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 4889 of 2015 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1443/2015 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION.
......
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------------
1. T.P.SHIVADAS FCS, AGED 52 YEARS,
COMPANY SECRETARY, RESIDING AT
KALATHIL HOUSE, PUNNAYOOR KULAM,
KUNNAMKULAM.
2. DR.A.C. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 61 YEARS,
S/O. CHOZHIKUTTY, RESIDING AT ALUNGAL HOUSE,
PALLATH LANE WEST, POONKUNNAM P.O.,
THRISSUR-680 614.
3. MOHANAN, S/O. APPUKUTTAN, AGED 59 YEARS,
ITHIKKAT HOUSE, VADANAPPALLYP.O.,
THRISSUR-680 614.
4. SURESH, S/O GOPALAN, AGED 42 YEARS,
VADAKKOOT HOUSE, EZHUTHACHAN ROAD,
ARIMPUR P.O.,THRISSUR-680 620.
5. SALIM, S/O KUNJUVAPPU, AGED 40 YEARS,
PAYYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, KATTAKAMPAL P.O.,
THRISSUR-680 544.
6. RAJESH, S/O NARAYANAN, AGED 59 YEARS,
ITTILAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHOORAKKATTUKARA,
AMALA NAGAR, THRISSUR-680 555.
7. GOPINATHAN, S/O GOPALAN, AGED 55 YEARS,
VADAKKOOT HOUSE, ARIMPUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
THRISSUR-680 506.
8. SAINUDDIN, AGED 60 YEARS,
MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, KANDANASSERY,
THRISSUR-680 102.
Bail Appl..No. 4889 of 2015
9. PRADEEP K.B., S/O BHARATHAN, AGED 39 YEARS,
KARUTHARAM HOUSE, THUMBANKADAVU P.O.,
TALIKULAM, THRISSUR, PIN:680 510.
10. VIJAYARAJAN, S/O SHANKARANKUTTY,
AGED 54 YEARS, ITHIKKATTU HOUSE,
KUNDALIYUR, THRISSUR-680 656.
11. LATHA PREMANANDHAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
ALUNKAL HOUSE, MANATHALA, CHAVAKKAD,
THRISSUR-680 506.
BY SRI.S. SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE.
ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE,
SRI.P.PRIJITH,
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA,
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
* ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED
2. ACHUTHANKUTTY, PADINJAREPATT,
SANTHI, XV/163, PARATH LANE,
MAMMIYOOR, GURUVAYOOR.
* ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 18/08/2015 IN
CRL.MA. NO.8255/2015 IN BA.4889/2015.
R1 BY SRI.T.ASAF ALI, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION.
ADDL. R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2015
ALONG WITH BA. NO. 5035 OF 2015 AND BA. NO.5859 OF 2015, THE COURT
ON 12/11/2015 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2015
COMMON ORDER
Applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. These bail applications arise out of three crimes registered in different Police Stations. Some of the accused are common to all the crimes. In two crimes, the defacto complainant is the same. One crime is initiated at the instance of another. For clarity, I shall narrate the relevant facts in each case separately hereunder.
3. Crime No.1840 of 2015 registered by the Thrissur East Police Station is in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 408 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC"). The accused 1 and 2 and the defacto complainant along with others are the Directors of a company by name Punarjani Securities Ltd. It is the allegation that the accused 1 and 2 withdrew `35 lakhs and `30 lakhs respectively without the knowledge and consent of Director Board of the company, they fabricated the seal of the Indian Consulate at Dubai and forged the signature of the Vice Consul on a proxy form in an election to the post of Directors of the company. Fake proxies were submitted on B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 2 15.06.2015 and 16.06.2015 before the authorities in spite of warning by the independent Chairman appointed by the Company Law Board (CLB), where certain disputes between the Directors are pending. The accused used the concocted and falsely created proxies in the election. They thereby are liable to be punished under the aforementioned provisions.
4. Kunnamkulam Police Station Crime No.1443 of 2015 is registered under Sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 43 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Allegation therein, in brief, is that on 27.07.2015, the first accused and other accused persons with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant, who is the Chairman of a company by name Aswini Hospital Ltd., and also other shareholders and with a view to make an unlawful gain to the accused and unlawful loss to the shareholders forged the digital signature of the defacto complainant and used the same to upload certain forms in the website of the Registrar of Companies.
5. Allegations in Crime No.1892 of 2015 of Thrissur East Police Station registered under Sections 323, 392, 506(ii), 452 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC are that the named accused persons along with 50 other accused identifiable by sight, trespassed into Aswini Hospital, Thrissur on 29.07.2015 at 10.30 a.m. and attacked the defacto complainant and other employees of the hospital, ransacked the hospital by destroying doors, B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 3 computers, etc. and took away valuable documents from the hospital causing a loss to the extent of `25 lakhs.
6. Five accused persons in Crime No.1840 of 2015 of Thrissur East Police Station are the petitioners in B.A.No.5035 of 2015. They raised the following contentions: Punarjani Securities Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Object of the company is to trade in shares, securities, debentures, bonds, to purchase business property, etc. The company has a subsidiary company, viz., M/s.Aswini Hospital Pvt.Ltd. which is conducting two hospitals, viz., Aswini Hospital and Aswini Health Care at Thrissur. It is the specific contention that petitioners 1 and 2 who are doctors working in Aswini Hospital, Thrissur are the Directors of Punarjani Securities Ltd. as well as Aswini Hospital Pvt.Ltd. Defacto complainant Sri.O.P.Achuthankutty is also a director of Punarjani Securities Ltd. According to the petitioners, he was one of the Directors of Aswini Hospital Pvt. Ltd. elected in an extraordinary general meeting on 18.06.2015. Later it was realised that out of the 12 Directors elected on 18.06.2015, seven were foreign nationals/residents and therefore are NRIs. Defacto complainant is also a businessman residing abroad. It is further alleged that the said seven Directors, including the defacto complainant, deliberately concealed their foreign residence and applied for Director Identification Number (DIN) and produced documents to misrepresent that B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 4 they are residents and obtained DIN in violation of Section 153 of the Companies Act, 2013. Hence the first petitioner filed a complaint on 14.07.2015 before the Registrar of Companies. In the above circumstances, an extraordinary general meeting was held on 27.07.2015 and it was resolved to remove the seven Directors including the defacto complainant. First petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the defacto complainant and other former Directors who obtained DIN by deceitful means. The complaint was forwarded to Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.") and the matter is pending investigation. Allegation that petitioners 1 and 2 withdrew huge sums without sanction of the Director Board is incorrect. In the meeting of the Directors of Punarjani Securities Ltd. held on 14.08.2015 it was resolved to permit petitioners 1 and 2 to withdraw their funds for a short period. In the said meeting, the defacto complainant was also present. Annual general meeting of Punarjani Securities Ltd. was held on 15.06.2015 and 16.06.2015. Some of the shareholders of the company are residing in UAE. Shareholders may attend the meeting either in person and cast vote or they may do so through a proxy. Petitioners contended that some shareholders residing in UAE entrusted the proxies to a certain person for getting them attested through the Consulate. Attested copies were forwarded to the independent Chairman, Mr. S.M.Ameerul Millath, B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 5 appointed by the CLB in C.P.No.34 of 2015 as per order dated 11.05.2015 to convene the Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM). The general meeting was held as scheduled and proxies along with shareholders participated in the election of the Directors of the company. It is the allegation that the defacto complainant falsely filed a complaint before Police that they withdrew huge amounts and used forged proxies to attend the EOGM held on 15.06.2015 and 16.06.2015. According to the petitioners, they are totally innocent.
7. B.A.No.4889 of 2015 is in respect of Crime No.1443 of 2015 of Kunnamkulam Police Station. There are altogether 11 accused in the crime. Petitioners contended that pursuant to the EOGM of the company held on 18.06.2015, the defacto complainant and 12 others were elected as the Board of Directors of the company. Later it was detected that the defacto complainant and some others suppressed their NRI status and obtained DIN. In the above circumstance, EOGM of the company held on 27.07.2015 resolved to remove seven Directors including the defacto complainant for suppressing a material fact. In connection with that action of the petitioners, the defacto complainant became hostile to them. Hence he has filed a false case.
8. B.A.No.5859 of 2015 is relating to Crime No.5859 of 2015. There are altogether 12 accused persons. Out of that, nine accused are B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 6 the petitioners in this application. Petitioners stoutly denied the allegation that on 29.07.2015 at 10.30 a.m., they along with other accused trespassed into the Aswini Hospital, assaulted the Chairman (defacto complainant) and staff members. According to them, the defacto complainant was removed from the Directorship for obtaining DIN by suppressing his NRI status. Therefore, he has no right of management. The case of trespass and assault are totally untrue.
9. The defacto complainant in Crime Nos.1840 and 1443 of 2015 got himself impleaded. The defacto complainant is arrayed as second respondent in B.A.No.4889 of 2015. Contentions raised by the defacto complainant in other cases are also the same. The fact that Punarjani Securities Ltd. and Aswini Hospital are limited companies is admitted. He contended that Dr.A.C.Velayudhan and Dr.V.G.Suresh had approached the Company Law Board (CLB) with Company Petition No.34 of 2015 seeking to set aside their removal from the Director Board. In fact, for their misdeeds, they vacated the office by operation of law. However, fact of the matter is that the dispute regarding management of the company is pending before the CLB and some matters were taken to this Court as well. In the above Company Petition, CLB issued orders on 11.05.2015 appointing an independent Chairman to convene and hold an Extraordinary General Meeting (EOGM) of the company for electing the Directors. B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 7 Accordingly EOGM of the holding company (Punarjani Securities Ltd.) was convened on 15.06.2015 and 12 persons were elected as Directors of the company. Subsequently on 18.06.2015 EOGM of the Aswini Hospital was also convened and Directors were elected. Pursuant to the report of the independent Chairman, CLB on 07.07.2015 disposed the Company Petition recognizing the faction of the additional second respondent (defacto complainant) as Directors of the Board in control of the administration of the company. Thereafter the defacto complainant (additional second respondent) caused the filing of e-forms DIN 12 with Registrar of Companies, Ernakulam. As the faction headed by Dr.A.C.Velayudhan could not accept the decisive mandate of the shareholders in favour of the defacto complainant, the faction led by him (accused) with gundas trespassed into the hospital on 29.07.2015 and forcibly took away all the statutory records of the company including DIN application forms, share application forms, original certified true copy of the Chairman's report, common seal of the company, minutes book of the Board meeting, attendance registers, filled up and blank share certificates, etc. Therefore, a complaint was filed before the Thrissur East Police Station which is registered as Crime No.1892 of 2015 against Dr.A.C.Velayudhan and others.
10. Another case, Crime No.1840 of 2015 was also registered on B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 8 25.07.2015 against Dr.A.C.Velayudhan and others for withdrawal of huge amounts without the knowledge of the Board of the company. Further, they used fake proxies in the election by forging the seal of the Dubai Consulate. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the independent Chairman through his Company Secretary sent an email on 13.06.2015 to the Deputy Consul General, Consulate General of India, Dubai to ascertain whether the proxies produced by the accused were genuinely attested or not. In reply, the Deputy Consul General informed the Company Secretary that the documents purported to be attested by Shri Naresh Kumar, Vice Consul are totally fake. Shri Naresh Kumar, Vice Consul left Dubai on 02.11.2013 on transfer as Second Secretary to the Embassy of India, Kathmandu. Therefore, the independent Chairman informed the matter to the petitioners (accused persons) and sufficiently warned them, but they were adamant to do proxy votes. The independent Chairman had warned them about the consequences of using forged proxies too.
11. Yet another crime was registered by Kunnamkulam Police against Dr.A.C.Velayudhan and others for making a forged digital signature of the additional second respondent and for filing e-forms in the website of the Registrar of Companies. The additional second respondent contended that Dr.A.C.Velayudhan and his henchman fully knowing the consequence of the action, committed the offences. The defacto complainant strongly B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 9 opposed the grant of bail.
12. Heard Shri S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Shri C. Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the defacto complainant and Shri T.Asaf Ali, learned Director General of Prosecution (DGP).
13. Shri T.Asaf Ali, learned Director General of Prosecution contended that for financial gain and for grabbing control of companies, some of the accused, who are professionally qualified and occupying high places in the society, have committed an anti-national activity by taking part in forgery of the signature and seal of the Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, Dubai. Gravity of the offence is to be considered remembering the fact that the fake seal allegedly used is still with the accused or those who have committed the actual forgery. It can be used for many anti-national activities including the creation of fake passports, renewal of visas, etc. Therefore custodial interrogation of the accused persons to ascertain the extent and magnitude of the offence is highly essential. In respect of other crimes, learned DGP contended that the doctors among the accused working in a hospital behaved in an unruly manner, ransacked the hospital and committed criminal activities petrifying the patients and bystanders. In this context also they are not entitled to get pre-arrest bail.
14. Shri C.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 10 defacto complainant also opposed the bail applications by contending that the digital signature of the defacto complainant was falsely created and that was used to upload incorrect informations regarding the company in the website of Registrar of Companies. According to him, apart from other criminal activities, this also constitutes a grave illegality. The defacto complainant has a further grievance that he had been manhandled by the accused persons and snatched away valuable records from his possession. Hence, grant of pre-arrest bail is strongly opposed by the defacto complainant.
15. Per contra, Shri S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are well placed in society and are law abiding citizens. They have not done any wrong as alleged. According to him, the management disputes in respect of incorporated companies have been taken to CLB and this Court in a proper way. According to the petitioners, they are portrayed as criminals without any justification and with a view to tarnish image. They never participated in any forgery. They used the proxies for casting vote only on account of the permission granted by the independent Chairman. Since some of the accused had been elected as Directors of the company, they have every right to enter the hospital and discharge the functions in the matter of administration. They never criminally trespassed or committed any offence as alleged. B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 11
16. Companies Act, 2013 (in short, "the Act") and the Rules thereunder are relevant for our purpose. Section 104 corresponding to Section 175 of the 1956 Act deals with the election to the post of Chairman of the company. Section 105 of the Act says that any member of a company entitled to attend and vote at a meeting of the company shall be entitled to appoint another person as proxy to attend and vote at the meeting on his behalf. Section 105(2) of the Act prescribes that every notice calling a meeting of the company recognizing the voting by proxy at the meeting shall with reasonable prominence show a statement that a member entitled to attend and vote is entitled to appoint a proxy or more proxies, as the case may be. Sub-Section (6) of the Section says that the instrument appointing a proxy shall be in writing and be signed by the appointer or his attorney duly authorised in writing. Nowhere it is mentioned that the proxies are to be attested any authority. However, in this case, since some of the shareholders reside abroad, they decided to get it attested from the Consulate. There the allegation of forgery comes out. Rule 18 of the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014 deals with issuance of notice of the meeting. Rule 19 of the same Rules is also relevant. The proxy form is given in the Rules as Form No.MGT-11. On a perusal of the form, it can be seen that there also no prescription for attestation is made. Sections 156 and 157 of the Act deals with furnishing B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 12 of details of DIN to the Registrar of Companies. Rule 9 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 and Form No.DIR-3 are also relevant in the context of the contention that the defacto complainant and some other Directors suppressed their NRI status and obtained DIN from the authorities. That is one of the causes of action for taking up the matter to the CLB.
17. Shri S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel contended that neither Dr.A.C.Velayudhan nor Dr.V.G.Suresh or any other person was directly responsible for causing attestation of the proxies by Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, Dubai. So much so, they are not responsible for any fraudulent attestation, if at all it had been done by anyone. They merely heeded to the request of the shareholders to act as proxies in the election. It is also contended that they have not seen the process of attestation by the Vice Consul as the prosecution has no case that they had gone to Dubai to procure the fabricated proxies. In answer to this contention, learned DGP contended that whether the persons who used the proxies in spite of warning by the independent Chairman had gone to Dubai to procure the proxies is a matter for investigation. Shri S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel further contended that the purpose of appointing a proxy is to effectuate the voting right of a shareholder who finds it inconvenient to personally attend an election. It is further B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 13 contended that it may be idle to think that the accused persons had gone to Dubai for getting the proxies attested, as normally it will be the look out of the shareholder who appoints the proxy to get it attested. The disputed proxy forms have been produced for scrutiny. It is seen that 15 proxy forms purported to be attested by the Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, Dubai are in the name of Shri Nikhil T.S., Dr.V.G.Suresh and Dr.A.C.Velayudhan. On a close scrutiny of the proxy forms, it can be seen that they contain signature of the shareholder and signature of the proxy holder. It appears from the proxy forms that the person who attested the same has purportedly attested both the signatures, ie., that of the shareholder and the proxy holder. The disputed proxies bear different dates. Before using the proxies, the independent Chairman appointed by the CLB had given following warnings to Dr.A.C.Velayudhan, Dr.V.G.Suresh and other proxies. The exact words of caution by the independent Chairman are quoted hereunder:
"It is seen that the proxy submitted by Dr.A.C.Velayudhan/Nikhil T.S./Vishnuprasad K.N. on behalf of Mr.Shibin K.K. (Folio No.322) is attested by Shri Naresh Kumar shown as Vice Consul, Consulate General of India, Dubai (UAE). However, it has been confirmed by the Consulate General of India, Dubai (UAE) that Shri Naresh B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 14 Kumar is at present not posted in the Office of the Consulate General of India, Dubai, UAE and hence the attestation is totally fake/forged. The said matter has been reported to Dubai Consulate for appropriate action. Any person voting on the basis of the said proxy would be doing so knowing the above position and at his and the shareholder's sole risk and also liable for such consequences as may be initiated."
18. Learned DGP further contended that the investigating agency has reached upto certain e-mails whereby some shareholders residing in Dubai have understood about creation of forged signature and seal of Vice Consul, Indian Embassy, Dubai and they decided to come down to Kerala for casting vote in the election, disregarding the proxies said to have been got attested by Shri Vijay, Genious Attestations, P.O.Box 70192, Suit No.546, 5th Floor, Damas Building, Burj 2000, Sharjah. Learned DGP therefore contended that the warning given by the independent Chairman to all the shareholders had been taken by many of them very seriously, except some of the accused persons. It is also contended that the accused persons, who were put to notice of forgery, have used forged proxies for casting vote in utter defiance of the warning given by the independent Chairman. In answer to this argument, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that as per Annexure-X minutes of the B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 15 meeting produced along with the statement of the first petitioner dated 16.10.2015, it could be seen that the independent Chairman permitted Dr.A.C.Velayudhan, Dr.V.G.Suresh and other proxy holders to vote subject to the issue raised by the defacto complainant regarding the genuineness of the proxies. Annexure-X filed along with the statement of the first petitioner in B.A.No.5035 of 2015 dated 16.10.2015 shows that the minutes was in respect of a meeting held on 13.06.2015. Learned DGP and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant contended that the minutes of the meeting presided over by the independent Chairman on 13.06.2015 underwent a drastic change as subsequently he gathered information that the proxies used by the accused were forged because the person who purported to have signed as Vice Consul had been transferred much before the so called attestation of the proxies. This information was promptly passed on to all the shareholders including the accused persons. That is why the independent Chairman put things in black and white warning accused persons of the consequences of using concocted and fabricated proxy forms for the election. In complete rejection of the warning, the accused chose to use the proxy forms and thereby incurred the criminal responsibility. It is also contended by the prosecution that they are criminally liable for creation of false proxies as the tenor of the proxies would show that they were present before the Officer at the time when it B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 16 was fraudulently created. When the proxies were produced at the time of election, the above extracted warning has been given to all the proxy holders by the independent Chairman. The accused persons who are educated and involved in a management tussle took the risk by themselves by using proxy forms shrouded by suspicion regarding their genuineness. As pointed out by the learned DGP, the accused may be aware about the fraudulent creation of proxies by using the forged seal and signature of Vice Consul of the Indian Consulate and as to who is in possession of the fake seal. It makes the situation very grave. On evaluation of the total facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to seek the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to get a pre-arrest bail.
19. In the matter of Crime No.1443 of 2015 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, the allegation is that the accused together committed the offences of cheating, forgery and creation of forged documents for the purpose of cheating. It is also the allegation that by using a fabricated digital signature of the defacto complainant, they uploaded false entries in the website of the Registrar of Companies. Offences under the Information Technology Act, 2000 are also alleged against the accused persons. Allegations in this case are intertwined with the allegations in Crime No.1840 of 2015 of Thrissur Town East Police Station. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioners in seeking a pre-arrest B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 17 bail.
20. In the matter of Crime No.1892 of 2015 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, the dispute pertains to the management of the hospital. It is alleged that they trespassed into the hospital and committed damages to the properties after beating the defacto complainant. It is an admitted fact that accused 1 and 2 and some other accused are Directors of the company. Therefore the case of trespass and robbery may not lie is the contention of the petitioners. Hospital is a place where patients hopefully approach for treatment for curing ailments and also to have mental peace. Any commotion, riotous or unruly behaviour would not only affect the physical comfort and mental peace of the patients, but also will be an anathema to the concept of nursing. However, it can be viewed from another angle. There was a scramble for management of the hospital. Considering the entire facts, I am of the view that the accused in Crime No.1892 of 2015 of Thrissur Town East Police Station can be granted pre- arrest bail with conditions. But the accused in Crime No.1443 of 2015 of Kunnamkulam Police Station and Crime No.1840 of 2015 of Thrissur Town East Police Station do not deserve invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction, especially considering the gravity, nature and magnitude of the crime and the details to be unearthed in a thorough investigation for revealing the true nature of the crime. Hence B.A.No. 4889 of 2015 B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 18 relating to Crime No.1443 of 2015 of Kunnamkulam Police Station and B.A.No.5035 of 2015 relating to Crime No.1840 of 2015 of Thrissur Town East Police Station are hereby dismissed. In B.A.No.5859 of 2015 relating to Crime No.1892 of 2015 pre-arrest bail is granted as follows:
i. In the event of arrest in Crime No.1892 of 2015 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, petitioners shall be released on bail on each one of them executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.
ii. The sureties shall produce documents to establish their identity and solvency. The investigating officer shall not insist on the solvency certificate, but other documents can also be perused to find out whether the sureties are solvent or not.
iii. Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed in writing and co-operate with the investigation in the matter.
iv. They shall surrender their passport if any. If any of the accused does not have passport, he shall sworn to an affidavit showing that fact and submit it before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction within a period of one week from the date of execution of the bond.
v. They shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. B.A. Nos.4889, 5035 and 5859 of 2015 19 In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the officer concerned is free to arrest the petitioners as if no order is passed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks