Allowed

Lathika M.V. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Apr 2008Bail Appl./1866/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the Manager and Accountant of a Co-operative bank, accused of conspiring to siphon funds. The court granted bail subject to conditions including surrender, execution of bond, availability for interrogation, and appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioners to surrender on 17.4.2008, execute bonds for Rs. 50,000 each, and appear for interrogation.

Lathika M.V. Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1866 of 2008()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO. 56/07 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION

¶8

PETITIONER : 2ND ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

LATHIKA M.V., W/O.BASHI KANIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALAZHY, MANALOOR THRISSUR.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶12

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, A/W. BA 2061 OF 2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R. BASANT, J.

¶18

- - - - B.A.Nos. 1866 & 2061 of 2008

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

These applications are for anticipatory bail. The petitioners

¶22

are accused 1 and 2 in a crime registered alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 468, 420 and 120B I.P.C. They are the Manager and Accountant of a Co-operative bank. Altogether there are three accused persons. The third accused is the Peon.

¶23

The crux of the allegations against the accused persons is that they entered into a conspiracy to siphon out funds from the bank and they allegedly acting in collusion and as conspirators siphoned out Rs. 32 lakhs from the account of the bank. The alleged incident took place in 2005. The crime was initially registered by the local police. But thinking that the case has to be investigated by the Vigilance Department, the file was forwarded to the Vigilance Department. They returned the file stating that the local police is competent to conduct the

¶24

B.A.Nos. 1866 & 2061 of 2008

¶25

investigation. It is thereafter that the local police has resumed the investigation. The third accused had approached this Court for anticipatory bail and his application was rejected. Later he has surrendered before the learned Magistrate and has been enlarged on bail. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest.

¶26

The case diary was perused. The learned Prosecutor was requested to specifically explain the precise allegations raised against the petitioners. The learned Prosecutor submits that the investigation is at a very early stage. There is nothing to show in the case diary at the moment that any prior enquiry has been conducted by any one before the F.I. Statement was lodged.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail now, no specific and precise allegation having been raised against the petitioners so far except a general allegation that all the accused had acted as

¶28

B.A.Nos. 1866 & 2061 of 2008 3

¶29

conspirators. I am satisfied that subject to appropriate conditions petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail.

¶30

In the result:

¶31

(1) This application is allowed.

¶32

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶33

(a) The petitioners shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 17.4.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on regular bail on condition that they execute bonds for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶34

(b) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m.on 18.4.2008 and 19.4.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter they

¶35

¶36

B.A.Nos. 1866 & 2061 of 2008

¶37

shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶38

(c) If the petitioners do not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 17.4.2008 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioners and deal with them in accordance with law.

¶39

(d) If the petitioners were arrested prior to their surrender on 17.4.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, they shall be released on bail on their executing bonds for Rs.50,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 17.4.2008.

¶40

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶41

Lathika M.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lathika M.V. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Manaf Vs S.I. of Police

Saji and Others Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Bhanu Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Aby M.Abraham Vs Sub Inspector of Police

G.Shreekumar Vs the State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs S.I. of Police, Pulpally and Another