Allowed

S. Harilal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakulam

Kerala HC9 Feb 2018Bail Appl./488/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by the 24th accused in a corruption and financial fraud case. Considering the bonafide belief and lack of criminal antecedent, the court allowed the bail application with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No. R.C. 4(A)/ 2017/ CBI/ ACB/ COCHIN upon executing a bond of Rs.40,000 with two sureties.

S. Harilal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakulam — Corruption | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 20TH MAGHA, 1939 Bail Appl..No. 488 of 2018

¶5

CRIME No. R.C. 4(A)/ 2017/ CBI/ ACB/ COCHIN

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED.

¶7

S. HARILAL S/O R.S MENON, MANIMANDIRAM, THONNALLUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ERNAKULAM

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I.

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

STK

¶14

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

¶16

Bail Application No.488 of 2018

¶17

¶18

Dated this the 9^th day of February 2018

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the 24^th accused in Crime No. R.C. 4(A)/ 2017/ CBI/ ACB/ COCHIN registered for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶21

The petitioner has filed this application praying for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The learned Retainer Counsel for the CBI has opposed the application.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that the 1^st accused in the crime, while working as Senior Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Pandalam, during the period from 8.8.2011

¶25

Bail Application No.488 of 2018

¶26

: 2 :

¶27

to 17.8.2013, committed criminal conspiracy with the coaccused and by abusing his official authority and by recourse to corrupt and illegal means, sanctioned and disbursed huge public fund of the bank amounting to Rs.306.47 lakhs, in violation of the orders and circulars of the bank, deceptively under the financial schemes like Bhoomilakshmi loan and Small and Medium Enterprises loans to private loanees and thereby, the 1^st accused and the private loanees obtained undue pecuniary advantage without any public interest.

¶28

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner availed an amount of Rs.4,58,225/- as loan through Kerala Artisan Development Corporation Ltd. (KADCO) for the purpose of constructing a powder coating chamber for the firm of Anas (A10). However, the said powder coating chamber was not constructed. The investigation revealed that the petitioner had immediately after receiving the loan amount from the bank handed over

¶29

Bail Application No.488 of 2018

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

the said amount to A10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner believed the said Anas (A10) as he was the classmate of the petitioner. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the loan with the bonafide belief that Anas infact wanted to construct a powder coating chamber for his firm. However, immediately after availing the loan, Anus requested to hand over the amount to him, which the petitioner obliged. There is no allegation that the petitioner submitted any forged document for availing the loan. There is also no criminal antecedent against the petitioner.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of allegations raised against the petitioner, I am of the view that this is a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to allow this application.

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

Bail Application No.488 of 2018

¶35

In the result, this application stands allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.R.C. 4(A)/ 2017/ CBI/ ACB/ COCHIN on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within 10 days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for two months and thereafter, as

¶37

and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶38

(ii) The petitioner shall not leave the state of Kerala without the leave of the learned Special Judge concerned.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with

¶40

Bail Application No.488 of 2018

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

the investigation.

¶43

(iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the

¶44

investigation.

¶45

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶46

STK

¶47

Bail Application No.488 of 2018

: 6 :

STK

// True copy //

PA to Judge

S. Harilal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Harilal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakulam

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

Monson K. Mathew Vs the C.B.I

Shihab Vs Debesh Kumar Behra

Rajeshkumar.T.K Vs State of Kerala

V.Krishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mohammed Shafeek Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.T. Sugunan Vs Sukhalal V.C.