Dismissed

K.Sivanarayanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2008Bail Appl./5222/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment rejects the plea of anticipatory bail filed by the third accused in a criminal case involving misappropriation and forgery, holding interrogation necessary. Conversely, it grants bail to the second accused conditional on surrender and cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail of third accused rejected; Second accused directed to surrender within seven days, execute bond, and cooperate with investigation.

K.Sivanarayanan Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5222 of 2008() ----------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN CRMP 2403, 12457/2008 IN CRMP.2402/2008 of DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD CRIME NO.378/08 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

-------------------K.SIVANARAYANAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KITTA, EDAPPUKULAM, MENONPARA, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.KURIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶10

---------------------------------STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5254 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.HEMA, J.

¶14

----------------------------------------B.A.No. 5222 of 2008 &

¶15

B.A.No.5254 of 2008

¶16

-----------------------------------------

¶17

Dated this the 24^th October, 2008

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

These petitions are for anticipatory bail.

¶20

The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, accused 1 to 3, who are employees of the Triveni Super Market, in furtherance of a common intention misappropriated huge amount of money by depositing only a part of the money in the bank and misappropriating the balance, by forging chalan. Petitioner in B.A.No.5254 of 2008 is second accused and petitioner in B.A.No.5222 of 2008 is the third accused in the crime.

¶21

Learned counsel for second accused submitted that he was in charge of the Triveni Super Market, Palakkad for a part of the relevant date and first accused is the Clerk, who was also dealing with the transactions. The money used to be entrusted with the third accused for depositing the same in the bank. Chalan used to be prepared for depositing the money in the bank. But, if an amount of Rs.25,000/- is handed over to the third accused for deposit, he deposited only Rs.5,000/- entering only such details in

¶22

BA.5222 & 5254/08 2

¶23

the chalan and misappropriated balance amount. Thereafter, entries are made in the chalan in a such a way that the figure as well as words to make it appear that Rs.25,000/- is deposited. Entries are accordingly made in the registers based on the fabricated chalan. In the same manner, he misappropriated a huge amount. But, third accused, being in charge of the Super Market, is also implicated as accused. He has absolutely nothing to do with the offence. The entries are made in the registers only on the basis of the chalan which are forged by the third accused behind the back and brought to the Super Market.

¶24

Learned counsel for third accused submitted that all the allegations made are absolutely false. During the relevant period, he was not even working in Palakkad Trivent Super Market. From 19.6.2007 till 30.11.2007 he was working in Alathur, as evidenced by various documents but during such period he was not working there. According to him, he was transferred to Alathur and he was not even available at Palakkad, as evidenced by the documents produced. During the pendency of this petition, the police had taken into custody and detained him in the police without arresting the petitioner. Thereafter, when he was coming out of the police station, first accused and some persons forcibly took him away in a vehicle and he was made to sign several papers to fabricate

¶25

BA.5222 & 5254/08 3

¶26

documents against the petitioner. They had also created a document signed by petitioner to make it appear that the third accused has taken up the responsibility for the offence and exonerating others. third accused submitted a complaint is given to the Superintendent of Police also, as per Annexure-G. Third accused also submitted that he is mortally afraid of the police from his past experience and hence he expects some torture at the police station. Therefore, it is submitted that he may be allowed to surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned. Third accused has no liability for the offence and he has not committed any offence, it is submitted.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that third accused was working in Palakkad Triveni Super Market during the relevant period, in which the offence is committed. Though learned counsel for third accused submitted that during the period from 19.6.2007 to 30.11.2007 third accused was working in Alathur, the facts submitted are not fully correct. It is true that a transfer order was issued, but on an oral request made by him, he was allowed to continue in Palakkad Triveni Super Market, except for the period from 20.6.2007 to 1.11.2007. During the rest of the period, third accused was very much available in Palakkad Super Market and it is found on verification of records, as directed by this Court that

¶28

¶29

BA.5222 & 5254/08

¶30

the misappropriation was committed in the Triveni Super Market only during the period during which, third accused was working at Palakkad and during no other period there was any instance of misappropriation.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor however submitted that second accused may be directed to surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation and subject to that, he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to him. As far as third accused is concerned, it is submitted that he is the main culprit and anticipatory bail may not be granted to him, it is submitted.

¶32

On hearing both sides and on perusing the case diary, it appears prima facie that third accused has some role in the offence, as revealed from the materials now available in the case diary. I am also satisfied that it is a case where petitioner is required for interrogation. On consideration of the nature of allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. He will be required for interrogation also, in the nature of the allegations made. I am satisfied that third accused is to be interrogated by police considering the peculiar nture of the offence. Hence, the following order is passed:

¶33

i) Prayer for anticipatory bail by third accused is rejected.

¶34

¶35

BA.5222 & 5254/08

¶36

ii) Second accused shall surrender before the investigating officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and if he is arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer, on the following conditions:

¶37

a) He shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed.

¶38

b) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶39

c) Petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses or intimidate them or commit any offence while on bail and in case of breach of this condition, the bail is liable to be cancelled.

¶40

B.A.No.5222 of 2008 is dismissed and B.A.No.5254 of 2008 is

¶41

allowed.

¶42

K.HEMA, JUDGE

¶43

vgs.

K.Sivanarayanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sivanarayanan 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

Sivadas Vs State of Kerala

Chandra Bose Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chandra Bose Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Dinesan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Abraham Vs State of Kerala