Kerala High Court
Dr.V.G.Suresh vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 2016
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/26TH PHALGUNA, 1937
Bail Appl..No. 1360 of 2016 ()
-------------------------------
CRIME NO. 1840/2015 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION , THRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:
--------------------------------------------------
DR.V.G.SURESH, 44 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAN EZHUTHACHAN, ARYA, S.N.NAGAR
POOTHOLE PO, THRISSUR-680 004.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.S.MANU
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED
ADDL.R3. SIVARAJAN A.R., AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.RAMANKUTTY,
ARUKETTY HOUSE, KUNDALIYURP.O., THRISSUR-680616
ADDL.R3 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19.02.2016 IN
BA.1360/16 AND 1368/16.
ADDL. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.RASHEED
THIS BAILAPPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2016,
ALONG WITH BA NO.1427/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A. Nos.1360 and 1427 of 2016
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2016
COMMON ORDER
Applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Petitioner in B.A.No.1427 of 2016 is the 1st accused in Crime No.1840 of 2015 registered by the Thrissur East Police Station. Petitioner in B.A.No.1360 of 2016 is the 2nd accused in the same crime. They are involved in offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 408 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC").
3. Gist of allegations against the petitioners and other accused is that they are the Directors of a company by name Punarjani Securities Ltd. Defacto complainant is also one of the Directors of the company. It is alleged that the petitioners withdrew `35 lakhs and `30 lakhs respectively without the knowledge and consent of Director Board of the company. It is further alleged that they fabricated the seal of Indian Consulate at Dubai and forged the signature of the Vice Consul on proxy forms required in connection with an election to the post of Directors of the company.
4. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
BA Nos.1427 & 1360/2016 2
5. Bail applications filed by the petitioners earlier were considered by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2015 and they were dismissed. Subsequently, accused 4 and 5 in the crime approached this Court with B.A.No.464 of 2016 and it was disposed with directions as per order dated 21.01.2016. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that same orders may be passed in the case of these accused also, so that the investigation can move forward and the petitioners will be able to establish their innocence.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant opposed the request, contending that there is no change of circumstance and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get pre-arrest bail orders.
7. Learned Prosecutor also opposed the applications contending that the petitioners were evading the process of law.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners can be directed to surrender before the law enforcing agency and co-operate with the investigation. Hence the following order:
i. Each petitioner shall, in two weeks, appear before the investigating officer and subject themselves for questioning. Thereafter, the investigating officer shall produce them before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day. In that event, the petitioners can move the BA Nos.1427 & 1360/2016 3 concerned court for bail. Learned Magistrate shall consider the matter with due notice to the Public Prosecutor. If the circumstances so require, the investigating agency may move the court below for getting custody of the accused as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure and if they do not feel so, the court below shall consider the bail applications filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks