Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Adv.Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar on 18 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 3995 of 2018
CRIME NO. 764/2018 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED
BIJU VISWAM,
AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. VISWAMBARAN, PATHMASAROVARAM,
THEVALAPPURAM P.O., PUTHOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN,SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-07-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J
=====================
B.A No.3995 of 2018
=====================
Dated this the 18th day of July, 2018
ORDER
This application is filed under B'438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.764 of 2018 registered at the Pathanapuram Police Station, under B'B'201, 403, 405, 406, 409, 471, 477A, 420 and 468 of the IPC. The aforesaid Crime was registered on a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein before the learned Magistrate, which was referred to the police under B'156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
3. According to the de facto complainant, the applicant herein was the Branch Manager in the Pathanapuram show room of Panachamoottil Motors. During the period from 26.10.2015 till 9.9.2017, the applicant herein is alleged to have falsified records and made false entries and collected a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the customers of the de facto complainant. He failed to account for the said amount and thus cheated the de facto complainant.
B.A No.3995 of 20182
3. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been working in the institution even prior to 2015 in other branches. He resigned from the job during Onam in the year 2017 as he was not paid the bonus and other emoluments due to him. According to the learned counsel, the accounts are software based and the same is audited. It cannot be believed that he would be able to hoodwink the de facto complainant for three years, contends the learned counsel.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the allegations are grave. The applicant has siphoned off a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by manipulating the Order Booking Forms. The Order Booking forms were removed by the applicant with a view to destruct all evidence against him. When he was finally caught, the applicant had admitted his wrongdoing and had even reduced his admission on a stamp paper. A settlement was arrived at and the sum due to the de facto complainant was assessed at Rs.2 Lakhs. He voluntarily handed over his Wagon R car B.A No.3995 of 2018 3 towards wiping off the amount due. Later, for non payment of EMI, the car was possessed by the financiers. It is also submitted that the applicant herein had sent an e-mail through the company's mail ID asking some of the employees to destruct certain papers which were incriminating. The learned counsel contended that the allegations are grave and the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard and I have gone through the materials which were made available.
6. Admittedly, the alleged fraudulent acts pertain to the period from 26.10.2015 till 9.9.2017. Even according to the de facto complainant, a settlement was arrived at and the amount due has been fixed at Rs.2 lakhs. It appears that the accounts maintained by the de facto complainant will show the exact manipulation, if any, that has been committed by the applicant. As to how the applicant had managed to keep the alleged misappropriate under wraps for more than three years has also to be investigated.
7. In the facts and circumstances, it appears to me that B.A No.3995 of 2018 4 the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessitous. Necessary conditions can be imposed to ensure that the applicant co-operates with the investigation and he does not make himself scarce.
In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days 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 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
1).The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
2). He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
3). He shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the B.A No.3995 of 2018 5 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 rp/18.7.18 //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE.