Dismissed

Binoy N.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2017Bail Appl./324/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a second anticipatory bail application. Relying on previous findings of prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to alleged corruption charges and the petitioner's failure to produce required financial documents, the court held it was not a fit case to grant bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner free to surrender to investigating officer if desired.

Binoy N.S. Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/28TH POUSHA 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 324 of 2017 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN Bail Appl. 8385/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23.12.2016 CRIME NO. 1506/2016 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION , TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

BINOY N.S. AGED:36 YEARS, S/O N.K.SANKARU, NATTUVETTY HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.RAMABHADRAN SRI.K.R.SRIPATHI SMT.ANUPAMA SUBRAMANIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT (STATE): ----------------------------------

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶12

R BY ADV.MAYA.M.N,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-012017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.NO.324 OF 2017

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE A-TRUE XEROX COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO.8385/2016 OF THIE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23.12.2016

¶18

ANNEXURE B-TRUE XEROX COPY OF THE FIR & FIS IN CRIME NO.1506/2016 OF POLICE STATION, VALAPPAD

¶19

ANNEXURE C-TRUE XEROX COPY OF THE NOTE TO MD & CEO MANAPPURAM FINANCE LTD DATED 16.10.2015

¶20

ANNEXURE D-TRUE XEROX COPY OF PURCHASE ORDER DATED 20.10.2015

¶21

ANNEXURE E-TRUE XEROX COPY OF ONE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.6.2016.

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

SKS P.A TO JUDGE

A.M.BABU, J.

B.A.NO.324 OF 2017

Dated 18^th January, 2017

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioner seeks bail under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. He apprehends his arrest in crime no.1506/2016 of Valappad police station. He is the first accused in that crime case. He is alleged to have committed offences along with others under Secs 406 and 420 of the IPC read with IPC 34.

¶31

The petitioner was working with the Manappuram Finance Limited as Assistant Manager(Electronic Security). He was instrumental to the purchase of 3300 units of surveillance cameras which were to be installed at different branches of the Manappuram Finance Limited. The cameras were purchased at an inflated price. The actual price of the cameras was far below the amount taken by the petitioner and others from the Manappuram Finance Limited. That stated above are

¶32

¶33

B.A.NO.324 OF 2017

¶34

the allegations against the petitioner levelled by the prosecution.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard

¶36

the learned Public Prosecutor too.

¶37

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. The present application is the second one filed by the same petitioner in the same crime case in this Court. The earlier one was BA 8385/2016. It came up before me. I dismissed it on 23.12.2016.

¶38

On 23.12.2016 I perused the case diary which was placed before me for my perusal. One Mr Priyalal.N.G representing the Manappuram Finance Limited was the second respondent in the earlier bail application. Documents were produced in the said proceedings by the petitioner, the second respondent therein and also the prosecution. Having perused those documents and the papers in the case diary I came to the conclusion that materials were available prima facie connecting the

¶39

¶40

B.A.NO.324 OF 2017

¶41

petitioner to the offences alleged against him. I do not see any reason stated in the present application to take a different view.

¶42

I was informed by the learned Public Prosecutor on 23.12.2016 while disposing of the earlier application that the petitioner who was an employee on a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- had transacted more than Rs.1 crore through his bank account. I have sent for the case records in the earlier bail application and perused the same today. I directed the petitioner on 9.12.2016 to produce the income tax returns for the last three financial years and also the licence to do share trading business. I directed so since it was attempted to be explained to me by the petitioner that he was doing share trading business. It was assured to produce the licence and also the income tax returns. But the petitioner produced nothing. I have stated in my earlier order that even custodial interrogation may be necessary to ascertain the source of money. It is

¶43

¶44

B.A.NO.324 OF 2017

¶45

contended in the present application that the source of money is not the subject-matter of the present crime case.

¶46

It is not possible to accept that contention. The investigating officer may have to ascertain whether any money allegedly misappropriated from the Manapuram Finance Limited did come into the account of the petitioner.

¶47

This is not at all a fit case to grant bail under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. The investigation is not yet completed. The investigation is still in progress. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is doubtful whether the company alleged to have supplied the cameras is really in existence. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that without proper interrogation it is impossible to ascertain all these matters. The learned Public Prosecutor submits further that the genuineness of the documents will also have to be ascertained. Considering all these matters and in the absence of any change of circumstances I hold that

¶48

¶49

B.A.NO.324 OF 2017

¶50

bail under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C cannot be made available to the petitioner.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is prepared to surrender before the investigating officer. The petitioner is free to do so. If it happens, the investigating officer after interrogation shall produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate concerned. On such production, the learned Magistrate will act in accordance with law. It is made clear that the investigating officer need not keep on waiting for the surrender of the petitioner to arrest him.

¶52

In the result, the application is dismissed.

¶53

sks/17.1.2017 A.M.BABU Judge

¶54

¶55

B.A.NO.324 OF 2017

Binoy N.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binoy N.S. 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

Remesh Vs State of Kerala

Kunnumal Jubairya Vs State of Kerala

N.J.George Vs State of Kerala

Vandhana L.Soman Vs M.S.Pramodkumar

Sakthan Kuries and Loans Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Seby Mathew Vs State of Kerala