Allowed

Sajeev Vasudevan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC19 Jul 2018Bail Appl./4634/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This anticipatory bail application, filed by an accused facing charges of misappropriation under Section 420 IPC, was accepted. The court permitted the petitioner to surrender on specific conditions, noting that the investigation had progressed and custodial interrogation was not required at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to surrender before Investigating Officer within 10 days and thereafter be released on bail upon executing a bond with sureties, subject to specific conditions.

Sajeev Vasudevan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4634 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN Bail Appl. 4030/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19-06-2017 CRIME NO. 1589/2017 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶8

SAJEEV VASUDEVAN, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, ALATHINAL THARAYIL, MUNDAPPALLY, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 692 554.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT

¶11

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶12

ADOOR POLICE STATION,

¶13

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 608.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA,

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶16

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.V.SREEJA

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.07.2018, THE COURT ON 19-07-2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Pn 19/07

¶20

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶21

B. A. No. 4634 of 2018

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of July, 2018

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This anticipatory bail application is filed by the petitioner herein who stands arrayed as the accused in Crime No.1589/2017of Adoor Police Station at Pathanamthitta District for offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶25

The complaint is laid by the first informant, who is the sales head of M/s Omani Vegetable Oil and Derivative Company Limited, an Omanian Company. The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner herein, while working as the sales head of the above company at Jeddah, had misappropriated 5,18,400/- Saudi Riyal, approximate to 90,00,000/-, by selling the oil directly to₹ the customers. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail. The petitioner has set up a contention that the de facto complainant was his colleague in that company, who had offered a better job and received 5,00,000/- from him in 2015. He did not offer the job as₹ promised and did not return the money. Hence, in 2017, he resigned the job and returned to India.

¶26

The crux of the allegation of the de facto complainant

¶27

B. A. No. 4634 of 2018

¶28

¶29

is that of misappropriation of the amount of the company. It appears that a defence has now been set up on the basis of Annexure 5 statement. The petitioner relies on Annexure 3, which is a communication allegedly sent by him to his company justifying his conduct.

¶30

His earlier bail application filed as B.A. No.4030/2017 was dismissed by this Court by order dated 19.06.2017. It was held that serious allegation of misappropriation was raised and that granting of bail may hamper the process of investigation.

¶31

The petitioner has again approached this Court seeking bail. It was contended by the petitioner that the allegation of the prosecution is absolutely unbelievable. It was contended that, it cannot be believed that the petitioner herein, by diverting the stock for sale in private market, swindled huge amount within a period of five days. Petitioner contended that he worked in that institution only for a short duration and found that several irregularities being perpetuated in the above company. Hence, he tendered his resignation. Annexure A6 is the job reliving letter issued to him. It was contended that had he committed any misappropriation of money, he would not have been issued with

¶32

B. A. No. 4634 of 2018

¶33

¶34

such a letter. It was contended that he was relieved from the job by Annexure A6 only on satisfying that he has not committed any misappropriation.

¶35

The petitioner contended that he is ready and willing to appear before the investigating agency and to co-operate with the investigation. It was contended that in an identical case another accused was permitted to surrender by Annexure A10 detailed order. It was further contended that since the major part of the offence was committed abroad, investigation or inquiry could not be held abroad without sanction.

¶36

His bail application was dismissed almost one year back. The investigating agency has not chosen to arrest him in the meanwhile. It is seen that the statement of the de facto complainant has been recorded and he has produced before the investigating agency several documents touching upon the transaction. It was contended that in the above circumstances, a custodial interrogation was not required at this stage.

¶37

It is stated that the investigation has substantially progressed. It is seen that in Annexure A6 job relieving letter, it is stated that he was found to be hard working and honest in

¶38

B. A. No. 4634 of 2018

¶39

¶40

performing his duties. There is some basis in the contention of the petitioner that he would not have been relieved from his employment, if he has committed financial irregularities.

¶41

Having considered these facts, I am inclined to permit the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer on the following conditions:

¶42

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. After interrogation, questioning and identification, if any, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of 60,000/-₹ (Rupees sixty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court below.

¶43

(ii) He shall surrender his passport, if not already surrendered, before the Investigating Officer at the time of execution of the bond. However, further directions regarding the release of the passport will be within the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional court.

¶44

(iii) He shall appear before the Investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. for a period of one month from the date of execution of the bond.

¶45

B. A. No. 4634 of 2018

¶46

¶47

(iv) He shall not leave the country till the final report is laid, without the permission in writing of the court below where the matter is pending.

¶48

(v) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the witnesses and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶49

It is made clear that the present order is on the basis of the records available now. If more materials are unearthed disclosing the complicity of the petitioner, Investigating agency will be free to move this Court seeking alteration of this order.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶52

/true copy/

¶53

P. A. to Judge

¶54

Pn 17/07

Sajeev Vasudevan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev Vasudevan v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Anzil Vs the State of Kerala

Rahul Renjan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdu Rahiman Vs the State of Kerala

Sujesh.v Vs State of Kerala