Allowed

Mary John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016Bail Appl./3696/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed bail in cheating case against society officials under IPC. Court noted Joint Registrar found maladministration and dereliction in duty collection of loans, but no allegation of misappropriation or withdrawal for personal use, making custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioners on bail on executing bond for Rs.25,000 each with two solvent sureties each for like sum and complying with reporting and non-interference conditions.

Mary John Vs State of Kerala — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/12TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3696 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 528/2016 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6 & 8-12:

¶8

--------------------------------------------------1. MARY JOHN AGED 58 YEARS, D/O. JOHN, PRESIDENT, IRIKKUR VANITHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., RESIDING AT KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE, NAGANOOLIL, CH NAGAR, SREEKANDAPURAM.

¶9

SANTHA P. AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANAN, PULLANJI HOUSE, SREEKANTAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

THANKAMMA KUMMINIYIL AGED 45 YEARS, KUMMINIYIL HOUSE, KANJIRAKKOLLI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

MERIKKUTTY KULATHIL PARAMBIL AGED 45 YEARS, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶12

SOBHANA JAYAKUMAR AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. JAYAKUMAR, MATHERI HOUSE, PERUVALATHU PARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

SAKEENA P. AGED 24 YEARS, PAROTTAKATHU, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

SOUMYA SANTHOSH AGED 36 YEARS, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, ECHERI, KOOTTUMUGHAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

BHARGAVI P. AGED 47 YEARS, PAYYAN VEEDU, NIDUNGOM.

¶16

SELIN K.V., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O. ANTONY, KULATHIPARAMBIL PADINJAKKARA, KOTTOOR, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

SHEEBNA K.K. AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. SAJEEVAN,

¶18

PADINJAKKARA, KOTTOOR,

¶19

SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶20

Bail Appl.No. 3696 of 2016

¶21

-2-

¶22

PADMAVATHI K.M. AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. REMESAN, SREEKANDAPURAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶25

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶26

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S

¶27

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.3696 of 2016

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2016

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.528/2016 of the Sreekandapuram Police Station, registered under Sections 405, 406, 408, 420, 463, 464 and 468 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶33

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated

¶34

as follows:

¶35

The defacto complainant deposited a total amount of ₹84,850/- in Irikkur Block Vanitha Co-operative Society Ltd., Sreekandapuram during the period from 30.11.2013 to 5.5.2015 through the collection agents, namely, A9 to A12. However, the said amount was not repaid on demand. The accused No.1 is the President and accused Nos.2 to 7 are the Directors of the Society. The accused No.8 is the Secretary of the Society.

¶36

The petitioners have filed this application

¶37

under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶38

Heard.

¶39

¶40

B.A No.3696 of 2016

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Annexure-2 notice of the Joint Registrar would clearly show that there was no misappropriation of the funds and in the said circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to be granted relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Annexure-2 is the notice issued by the Joint Registrar (General), Kannur to the Board of Directors of the Society, directing them to submit explanation within 14 days as to why action should not be taken under Section 32(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It appears from Annexure-2 that there was mal administration of the Society from the year 2000-2001 onwards. There was also gross dereliction in collecting the arrears of the loan amount from the persons to whom the loan was disbursed. There was also gross dereliction in collecting the arrears of chitty amount from the subscribers. Annexure-2 notice was issued by the Joint Registrar (General) only after conducting an enquiry in respect of the allegations raised against the petitioners. There is no allegation that the petitioners had withdrawn any amount from the Society for their own purpose. There is also no allegation that the amount

¶42

¶43

B.A No.3696 of 2016

¶44

collected from the people was not deposited with the Society. The above said report does not mention that the petitioners had committed misappropriation of any amount. In view of the above reasons, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶45

In the result, this application stands allowed, and the respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.528/2016 of Sreekandapuram Police Station on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for 25,000/- each (Rupees twenty₹ five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of Sreekandapuram Police Station before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions;

¶46

i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 9.00 am and 11.00 am for six months, or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶47

¶48

B.A No.3696 of 2016

¶49

ii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence

¶50

the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶51

iii)The petitioners shall co-operate with the

¶52

investigation.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶55

//True Copy//

¶56

P.A to Judge

¶57

Mary John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary John 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

Shahinsad Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Francis Vs State of Kerala

Sajin Vs State of Kerala

Manoj George Vs State of Kerala

Sarockey Nelson Vs the Sub Inspector of Police