Allowed

K.K. Michael v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6776/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed by a contractor accused of misappropriation of funds in a Scheduled Caste development project and incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption and SC/ST (POA) Acts, holding documentary evidence sufficed for investigation without custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was enlarged on bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to reporting to the investigating officer and other conditions.

K.K. Michael Vs State of Kerala — Caste Atrocities | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6776 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 278/2016 OF KALIYAR POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶8

K.K. MICHAEL, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. MICHAEL, KUMBUKKATTU HOUSE, KALLAR P.O., MUNDIYARUMA KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SENIOR ADVOCATE)

¶10

ADVS. SRI.R.ANIL SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.M.VIVEK SRI.A.RAJESH SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.S.HRITHWIK

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

==============

B.A. No.6776 of 2016

==============

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2016

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime

¶24

No.278 of 2016 of the Kaliyar Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

¶25

Presently, through a report, the offence under Section 4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has also been incorporated as against A2 and A3, who are public servants. Similarly, through a report, the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has also been incorporated.

¶26

The petitioner is a Contractor, who was executing the works in the ‘self sufficient hamlet

¶27

BA No.6776/2016

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

project’ launched by the Kerala Scheduled Castes Development Department in Mullaringadu S.C. Colony, Pampadumpara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk.

¶30

A complaint has been preferred by the defacto complainant, who is a Scheduled Castes Promoter and the member of the committee, which was supervising the work, before the District Police Chief, to the effect that the petitioner herein and A2 and A3 have misappropriated an amount of 45,00,000/-, which was sanctioned to the Colony by the Government for the development of the members of the Scheduled Caste Community. It is alleged that the construction of road, culvert, sewer and such other development activities like drinking water project, renovation of houses etc., have not been properly carried out. It is also alleged that the works for amount less than 15,00,000/- were carried out and the petitioner has obtained an amount of

¶31

BA No.6776/2016

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

`45,00,000/-, thereby, they have committed

¶34

misappropriation through criminal breach of trust.

¶35

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the

¶36

petitioner and learned Senior Public Prosecutor. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor opposes the petition.

¶37

It seems that the investigation is presently going on. The learned Senior Counsel has invited the attention of this Court to various documents produced by the petitioner. Regarding the drinking water project, it has been pointed out that the said work was not ordered, in view of the fact that, another drinking water project was being implemented by the concerned Grama Panchayat. The learned Senior Counsel has also invited the attention of this Court to the document certified by the District Scheduled Castes Development Officer, who has recommended for the disbursement of even the 2^nd installment.

¶38

BA No.6776/2016

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

Whatever it is, on going through the

¶41

allegations and considering the arguments put forwarded from either side, this Court is of the view that the investigation is mainly based on documentary evidence. Such documents can be collected and verified even without the custodial interrogation of the petitioner. On going through the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the continued investigation of this case. At the same time, the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶42

In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for `1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer

¶43

BA No.6776/2016

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶46

(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays and Fridays, commencing from 11.10.2016 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

¶47

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶48

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶49

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶50

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

DSV/4/10/16

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

K.K. Michael v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K. Michael 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

Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

Binu Vs State of Kerala

Ranvir Kumar Vs a.C.Preman, Investigating Officer

Shaji & Another Vs State of Kerala

K v Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Neelambaran Vs Excise Inspector