Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Adv.Sri.T.K.Rajeshkumar on 12 July, 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
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 3984 of 2018
CRIME NO. 737/2018 OF KOOTHATTUKULAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
DR. SAJI EASSOW
S/O. O. THANGAPPAN, AGED 52, GENERAL MANAGER, M/S. MEAT
PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD. (GOVT. OF KERALA UNDERTAKING),
EDAYAR P.O., KOOTHATUKULAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686662.
BY ADV.SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA-682031.
2. S.I. OF POLICE,
KOOTHATUKULAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-686662.
3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (DYSP),
SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661.
R1 BY ADV. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
R BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K.SURESH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2018, ALONG
WITH B.A.No. 4115/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
AL/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
==================
B.A. Nos. 3984 of 2018 & 4115 of 2018
==================
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2018
ORDER
These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant in B.A. No. 3984 of 2018 is the 1 st accused and the applicants in B.A. No. 4115 of 2018 are accused Nos.5 and 2 in Crime No. 737 of 2018 registered at the Koothattukulam Police Station under Sections 120B, 403, 406, 409, 417, 420, 423 r/w Section 44 of the IPC. The Crime was registered on a complaint filed by one Phuntsok lama before the Superintendent of Police, Aluva Rural, on 25.5.2018.
3. The 1st accused is the General Manager of M/s. Meat Products of India Ltd., a State Government undertaking. The de facto complainant was in urgent need of chicken paws and legs and for that purpose, got in touch with the 1 st accused. The 1st accused is alleged to have introduced the 2 nd accused to the de facto complainant as his partner and associate. In order to dupe the de facto complainant, he was taken to various places and BA.Nos. 3984/18 & 4115/18 -:2:- numerous plants and factories were shown to him to induce him to believe that the accused Nos.1 and 2 had the wherewithal to carry out the export commitments, if the order was granted to them. Believing the words of the accused Nos.1 and 2, the de facto complainant transferred US$35,000 to the exporting company run by the 3rd accused. The 4th accused is the wife of the 3rd accused in whose name, the export licence has been obtained. It is further alleged that the amount transferred as aforesaid, was transferred in the account of the 5 th accused, who is the father of the 2nd accused. Later, the de facto complainant came to realise that he was defrauded. The consignment was not shipped nor was the amount paid by way of security deposit returned. This resulted in lodging the complaint before the police based on which the crime was registered.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the 2nd accused is the General Manager of M/s. Meat Products of India Ltd. According to the learned counsel, he is a Senior Veterinarian and is considered an authority in the meat processing industry. The Meat Products of India sells its products only through depot sales and through its BA.Nos. 3984/18 & 4115/18 -:3:- dealers in the State of Kerala. They have no export licence. The de facto complainant had approached him in the month of December, 2017 and had enquired about the prospects of obtaining processed chicken feet and paws for export. He was told that the Meat Products of India does not deal with the said product and he had only directed the applicant to meet someone else in the business. According to the learned counsel, the applicant had only introduced the 2 nd accused to the de facto complainant and he has no other role to play. It is further submitted that the applicant is a Senior Manager and an in-house enquiry was conducted and it was found that he had no role to play. The learned counsel would further contend that there cannot be any apprehension that the applicant would evade from the process of law and prays that necessary orders be issued to prevent him from being subjected to humiliation and ignominy.
5. Insofar as B.A. No.4115 of 2018 is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the 2 nd applicant, who is the 2 nd accused in the Crime, has been arrested by the police and is undergoing custody. The learned counsel would further submit that the allegation against the 5th accused is that a portion of the BA.Nos. 3984/18 & 4115/18 -:4:- amount which was paid by way of security was transferred to the account of the 5th accused by accused Nos.3 and 4. According to the learned counsel, the 5th accused is aged 75 years and his account was being operated by his son. No other allegations have been raised against the 5th accused, contends the learned counsel.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has very seriously opposed the prayer. He has invited the attention of this Court to the complaint filed by the de facto complainant and the devious mode in which the accused Nos.1 and 2 operated. It is submitted that it was based on the assurances given by the 1 st accused that the de facto complainant had decided to enter into the contract for supply of chicken paws and feet. The 1 st accused had a major role to play and the mere fact that he is the General Manager of a State Government undertaking is no reason to arm him with an order of pre-arrest bail.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials which were made available. Admittedly, a contract was entered into between the 2 nd accused BA.Nos. 3984/18 & 4115/18 -:5:- and the de facto complainant for the supply of processed chicken paws and feet. The supply was not effected though substantial amounts were received by way of advance/security deposit. In the complaint, there is specific allegation that the 1 st accused had a major role to play. But, it is evident that it was the 2 nd accused who was dealing with the de facto complainant all-through and it was the 2nd accused who had persuaded the de facto complainant to transfer amount to the exporting concern run by accused Nos.3 and 4. The 5 th accused does not appear to have a major role to play. Furthermore, all the transactions are borne out from bank records as well as agreements. The applicants are persons with permanent roots in the society and the prosecution does not have a case that any other crimes are reported against them. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are not necessary for an effective interrogation. Necessary conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.
8. In the result, these applications are disposed of as follows:
BA.Nos. 3984/18 & 4115/18 -:6:-
These applications insofar as it concern the 2 nd accused is closed. The accused Nos.1 and 5, who is the applicant in B.A. No.3984 of 2018 and the 1st applicant in B.A. No.4115 of 2018, 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 their executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., for three months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
ii) They 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.
iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.
iv) They shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, he shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the BA.Nos. 3984/18 & 4115/18 -:7:- 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 AL/-12/7/. //True Copy// P.S to Judge