Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.Santharam.P on 3 April, 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 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 1264 of 2018
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER
K.VINESAN KURUP
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPALAKURUP,
KADAYAMKOT HOUSE, KADAYAMKOT HOUSE,
KUNINGADU P O, PURAMERI VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673503.
BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHARAM.P
SMT.REKHA ARAVIND
SRI.K.A.MOHAMED HARIS
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31,
THROUGH S.H.O., NADAKKAVU POLICE ,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-04-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IAP
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A.No.1264 of 2018
--------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2018
ORDER
1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.177 of 2018 of the Nadakkavu Police Station, registered under Sections 406 & 420 of the IPC.
3.The de facto complainant is the Managing Partner of Pentagon Builders and he is engaged in the construction business. The petitioner herein was the General Manager of his concern. One Jayanth Jacob had booked a flat in the hillside apartment which is being constructed by Pentagon Builders. During the period from 5.4.2017 to 19.12.2017, the petitioner is alleged to have collected a total amount of Rs.8,80,000/- from the aforesaid Jayanth Jacob and thereafter without crediting the same in the account of the construction company, misappropriated the same.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are without basis. According to the B.A.No.1264 of 2018 2 learned counsel, the petitioner had resigned from the Company and thereafter false allegations have been levelled against him. It is further submitted that it is inconceivable to even comprehend that in the month of April, 2017 to December, 2017 any person would entrust large sum of money to the petitioner by way of cash transactions. According to the learned counsel, this would show the falsity of the complaint.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is still in the early stages. Referring to the report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Nadakkavu, it is submitted that though several witnesses were questioned, the police have not been able to obtain any materials which would corroborate the case of the complainant.
6.In view of the above, it does not appear to me that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted in the instant case.
7.In the result, this petition will stand allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days B.A.No.1264 of 2018 3 from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
(i)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and ordered to do so.
ii)The petitioner 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)The petitioner 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