K.R.Ajayan vs The State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2019

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.R.Ajayan vs The State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2019

Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

     FRIDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1940

                   Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2018

     CRIME NO. 2148/2018 OF Vaikom Police Station , Kottayam



PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED:


             K.R.AJAYAN,
             AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN P.K.,
             PUTHIKKAD HOUSE, PERUMBALAM P.O,
             ALLAPUZHA -699 570.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
             SRI.K.JAGADEESH
             SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR



RESPONDENT/S/STATE AND INVESTIGATING OFFICER:
       1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
             KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

      2      THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686141.


             BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT.V.SREEJA


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2018

                              2




                      O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2148 of 2018 of Vaikom Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 409 IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:

During the period from 01.06.2017 to 29.10.2017, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs. 46,51,140/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakh Fifty One Thousand One Hundred and Forty Only), while he was working as the shop in-charge of a retail shop of the Kerala State Beverages Corporation.

3. The petitioner has filed this application Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2018 3 praying for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

4. Heard.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was only an attender on deputation and that he was not in-charge of the retail shop, as alleged by the prosecution. However, that is a matter for investigation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the amount allegedly misappropriated by the petitioner is actually the amount which was already misappropriated by the person, who was in-charge of the retail shop till 06.06.2017. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has submitted that the person, who was in-charge of the retail shop was suspended with effect from 06.06.2017, on the allegation of misappropriation Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2018 4 of funds. It has been further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the actual amount misappropriated by that person is not yet calculated.

6. The petitioner also filed W.P.(C) No.31051 of 2018 before this Court seeking for repatriation of the petitioner to his parent Department. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court. Even the prosecution is not able to state correctly as to whether the said amount of Rs. 46,51,140/- (Rupees Forty Six Lakh Fifty One Thousand One Hundred and Forty Only) was misappropriated by the petitioner or the person, who was in-charge of the retail shop till 06.06.2017. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. will be justified in favour of the petitioner.

Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2018

5 In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.2148 of Vaikom Police Station, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the second respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days from today, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation. Bail Appl..No. 7439 of 2018 6

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

SD/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR RK/07.03.2019 JUDGE //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court