Allowed

Rosemary.T.S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2018Bail Appl./4760/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the 2nd accused in a theft and cheating case, holding that custody was not necessary for investigation despite the large loss involved.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to appear before I.O. and undergo interrogation; bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; subject to specific conditions.

Rosemary.T.S Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 28TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4760 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.1084/2017 OF KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

ROSEMARY T.S., AGED 34 YEARS, W/O ANOOP K.KALESAN, THATHACKADU HOUSE,NEDUMKUNNAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686542.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.T.V.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶12

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C. K. SURESH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No. 4760 of 2018 2

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.1084

¶18

of 2017 registered at the Karukachal Police Station, under Sections 406, 408, 417, 420, 424, 381, 212, 466 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶19

The aforesaid Crime was registered based on a complaint

¶20

filed by the Director of ART Leasing Ltd., a private financial institution, before the learned Magistrate, which was referred to the police for investigation. In the complaint, it is alleged that the company is engaged in the business of advancement of loans, gold loan etc. The 1^st accused had joined the concern as an account clerk in the year 2015 whereas, the applicant herein had been working as an account clerk from the year 2014. According to the prosecution, during the period while the accused Nos.1 and 2 were working in the firm, an audit was conducted on 16.6.2017. It was revealed that large quantity of gold had been pilfered from the concern causing a loss to the tune of Rs.18,58,000/-. When the offence was detected, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were confronted. It is alleged that they had undertaken that they would clear off the liability. The 1^st accused

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 4760 of 2018 3

¶22

had also executed a sale deed to settle the disputes. However, later, she resiled from the agreement and went back on her word. This prompted the company to set the law in motion.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the allegations levelled against her are without basis. Referring to the complaint, it is submitted that the 1^st accused had confessed about her involvement and had undertaken to make good the loss sustained by the company within a period of four months. An agreement was also entered into. The accused were permitted to continue in their position thereafter. It was only when the 1^st accused reneged from her promise to make good the loss that the complaint was lodged before the learned Magistrate. It is further urged that the finance company has also instituted a suit before the Munsiff's Court, Changanassery, for realising the amount. Finally, the learned counsel would submit that the transactions are all borne out by documents and it was in the said circumstances that the suit was instituted before the jurisdictional civil court. The learned counsel would further submit that the applicant herein is a young lady and the mother of two children and if she is arrested and detained on frivolous allegations, she would be subjected to gross trauma and ignominy.

¶24

Bail Appl..No. 4760 of 2018 4

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It

¶26

is pointed out that the investigation conducted till date points to the involvement of the applicant herein.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the complaint lodged before the learned Magistrate. In Annexure-II representation submitted by the applicant before the Chairman of the institution, the applicant has detailed the manner and mode in which transactions were carried out by the 1^st accused. Furthermore, it is clear from the records that several documents were executed by the 1^st accused in favour of the finance company to clear the liabilities. Having regard to the sequence of events and the nature of allegations, the role assigned to the applicant and her antecedents, I am of the view that the detention in custody of the applicant is not necessary for carrying out an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶28

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 4760 of 2018 5

¶30

order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶32

ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶33

iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶34

iv) She shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, the applicant shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction.

¶35

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶38

IAP

Rosemary.T.S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rosemary.T.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

Dibin Vs State of Kerala

Maharoof M @ Mangadan Vs the State of Kerala

Khadeeja Vs the State of Kerala

Sachin K.J. Vs State of Kerala

Senthil Kumar @ Robin Vs the State of Kerala

Johny P.R. Vs State of Kerala