Kerala High Court
Sajithkumar P S vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2021
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.7992 OF 2020
CRIME NO.659/2020 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SAJITHKUMAR P S
AGED 43 YEARS
PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE,
CHIRAKAKOM, VARAPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN- 683 317
BY ADV. SRI.R.REJI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
682031
2 ADDL.R2. MATHEW JOHN M.
AGED 43 YEARS
GENERAL MANAGER, FINANCE,
SHINRAI YAMAHA, SHINRAI AUTOMBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,
MARADU, COCHIN, MARADU P.S., ERNAKULAM CITY, KERALA,
INDIA
PIN.682304.
IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/12/2020 IN
CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOLLY JOHN
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.V.SREEJA -PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.7992 OF 2020
2
ORDER
Dated this the 26th day of February 2021 This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.
2. The applicant is the 7th accused in Crime No. 659/2020 of Maradu Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that the 1st accused, supposed to be the Manager(Finance) of the defacto complainant company namely Shinrai Yamaha Automobiles, Pvt. Ltd., Thoppumpadi, allegedly sold vehicles to the accused 3 to 8, including the applicant, who are sub agents of the company and he did not remit the amounts received from the purchases of the vehicle, during the period 2017-2020 and thus misappropriated an Bail Appl..No.7992 OF 2020 3 amount of Rs. 1.49 crores, and more particularly a sum of Rs. 17,012,23.85 is due to the company from the applicant. And thus, the abovementioned company of which the de facto complainant is the General Manager was cheated.
4. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. The applicant admits that he was a sub dealer of the defacto complainant company, and is the proprietor of 'P.S. Motors' Varapuzha. He had some disputes regarding transacting with the defacto complainant company as is evident from the documents produced. . The officials of the defacto complainant had issued an Email to the applicant stating that an amount of Rupees 11,38,958/- is due to them, the applicant appraised them of the fact regarding the prompt payments made by him and showed the bills and vouchers of the transaction. It is also submitted that at the time of entering into the dealership agreement with the Shinrai Motors, the applicant has issued a blank and undated Bail Appl..No.7992 OF 2020 4 cheque bearing No. 061707 of Federal Bank to Shinrai Motors as security, as demanded by them. It is stated that it is true that certain amounts were due from the sub agents to the company but there is also other amounts due from the company to the sub agents, which needs to be settled. And it has been made clear in the reply notice was sent. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that this is a clear civil dispute which has been sorted out by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and it is not a criminal offence. The dispute is regarding the payment of money and it is not of misappropriation as is revealed from the complaint filed by the defacto complainant. Hence, the applicant prays that he is entitled to pre-arrest bail. He is not likely to abscond and is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and answer to any queries that may be put to him regarding the alleged transaction with the defacto complainant company. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Bail Appl..No.7992 OF 2020 5 applicant, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that a sum of Rs. 1,49,00,000/- have been misappropriated by the 1st accused and sub agents of the defacto complainant company and the offence alleged against the accused, which is a grave offence. Hence, he is not entitled for the exceptional remedy of the pre-arrest bail.
7. After having heard the submissions, I find that the alleged misappropriation took place during the year 2017 -2018 and it is rather surprising that how the de facto complainant company was not able to identify the alleged misappropriation, despite being a company having a proper accounting system. The accounts have to be submitted before the Registrar of Companies and it is not possible to sell the vehicles without receiving a proper consideration for those items sold to the sub agents. Prima facie, it is difficult to accept the allegations made by the defacto complainant. It is true that there appears to Bail Appl..No.7992 OF 2020 6 be some disputes between the sub agents and the defacto complainant company, which needs to be sorted out by the appropriate forum. Therefore, I find that the custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary as he is willing to co-operate with the investigation. Moreover, it is documentary evidence, which is required to prove the de facto complainant, which he is in possession of.
Hence the application is allowed, and the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. After interrogation and recovery, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following conditions:
(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
(ii) He shall not tamper with evidence, Bail Appl..No.7992 OF 2020 7 intimidate or influence witnesses.
(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.
In case of the breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.
(Sd/-) ASHOK MENON JUDGE LU