Allowed

Ajith Thomson, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Oct 2019Bail Appl./2777/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the second accused in a cheating case involving a non-banking financial institution. The court imposed strict conditions, including mandatory surrender for interrogation and restrictions on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail subject to bond of Rs.50,000 and conditions to appear for interrogation and cooperate with investigation.

Ajith Thomson, Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2777 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.44/2019 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

AJITH THOMSON, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, RESIDING AT VELLIPARAMBIL , 13-D1, STAR HOMES, VYMEETHI ROAD, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SANISH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031, REPRESENTED BY THE (SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT).

¶12

ADDL. JOSE PETER, S/O PETER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R2 OLIYAPURAM HOUSE, NEDUKANI, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686691 (CEO OF RAMTHEERTH LEASING AND FINANCE PVT LTD) ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.6.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOMY GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI RAMESH CHAND PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.2777 OF 2019

¶18

..2..

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No. 44 of 2019 of the Thiruvalla Police Station registered under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and Section 34 of the IPC.

¶22

The aforesaid crime was registered on 04.01.2019 based on information furnished by one Jose Peter, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Ramtheerth Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. According to the informant, the aforesaid company is a non-banking financial institution registered under the Companies Act and one of their subsidiary companies is Arogya Leasing and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. The said company is engaged in the disbursement of medical loans to needful patients. It is alleged that the applicant herein was appointed as the Manager (Credit & Sales) of Arogya Finance from 05.12.2016 onwards. He was handed over the entire charge of the State of Kerala. It is further alleged that the 1^st accused in the aforesaid crime, Sri.M.J.Jacob, is the proprietor of the two hospitals situated at Eraviperoor. The applicant, along with the 1^st accused, is alleged to have submitted forged documents and applied for loans from Arogya

¶23

Bail Appl..No.2777 OF 2019

¶24

..3..

¶25

Finance. The loan applications were submitted in the names of nonexisting persons. The amounts were disbursed to the 1^st accused believing the words and representations given by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is further alleged that the applicant did not even bother to collect the details of the patients and furnish the same to the de facto complainant. By the acts of accused Nos. 1 & 2, loss to the tune of Rs. 69.4 lakhs was allegedly caused.

¶26

Sri.Sanish C.R., the learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

applicant, contended that the applicant is totally innocent. According to the learned counsel, there is a long and undue delay in setting the law in motion. Though it is alleged that loss of Rs.69.4 lakhs was caused, no documents have been produced to show that the amounts were disbursed either to the applicant or to the first accused, who is now no more. He would urge that not even a single paise was transferred to the account of the applicant and to substantiate the same, he has produced Annexures A3 & A4 bank statements. It is further urged that the applicant was threatened by the informant and he was forced to execute certain letters and to hand over a cheque. The cheque was filled up and a complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional court in Mumbai. He would contend that for the manipulations, if any, carried

¶28

Bail Appl..No.2777 OF 2019

¶29

..4..

¶30

out by the 1^st accused, the applicant cannot be held liable. Finally, it is submitted that the 1^st accused lost his life while he was in custody and the entire records have been seized by the police. Being a person with no criminal antecedents, he be spared from the rigors of the custodial interrogation, is the submission.

¶31

The de facto complainant has got himself impleaded and a detailed statement has been filed before this Court. Sri.Jomy George, the learned counsel, submits that a detailed enquiry was carried out through a supervisor and he has submitted a report that the applicant herein had clear involvement and he had rendered active assistance to the first accused. He would also refer to a letter purported to have been issued by the applicant admitting his liability. It is submitted that the entire amounts were transferred to the first accused and the same was done as suggested by the applicant.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the prayer. He would contend that the investigation conducted till date clearly reveals that the applicant herein had assisted the first accused to dupe the de facto complainant.

¶33

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. Admittedly, the loan applications were submitted

¶34

Bail Appl..No.2777 OF 2019

¶35

..5..

¶36

by the 1^st accused in respect of patients who got admitted in his hospital. The duty of the applicant was to conduct a proper enquiry as regards the applicants and to report on the genuineness of the same. He was expected to ascertain as to whether such an application was made by a person and collect necessary documents related to the loan application and forward it to the company for approval. He was also expected to collect the details and address of a close relative of the patient/borrower for the purpose of processing the loan application. The specific case of the de facto complainant is that the applicant did not conduct a proper enquiry before forwarding the records to the informant. The case records show that the entire money was transferred to the 1^st accused, who is now no more. It is submitted that the entire records have been seized from the office of the 1^st accused. The case records also show that the patients who received part payments have been questioned by the police. As the crime was registered on 04.01.2019, substantial part of the investigation is complete. The applicant is not a person with criminal antecedents and the records produced by him show that no money has come into his accounts. Having considered all the relevant facts, the role assigned to the applicant, the stage of investigation and attendant facts, I am of

¶37

Bail Appl..No.2777 OF 2019

¶38

..6..

¶39

the view that by imposing stringent conditions, the applicant can be granted an order of pre-arrest bail. However, if the Investigating Officer feels that the custody of the applicant is required for the purpose of investigation, the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to file appropriate application before the learned Magistrate. If such an application is filed, the applicant shall appear before the learned Magistrate and his presence before the learned Magistrate shall be treated as judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining the application for police custody, as held in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and another v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565].

¶40

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 he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his 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 order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶41

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶42

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶43

..7..

¶44

Bail Appl..No.2777 OF 2019

¶45

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.

¶46

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

¶47

iv) In the event of the police making out a case of a likely recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the applicant shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery as held in paragraph No.19 of the judgment by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court reported as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra).

¶48

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.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, V.

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

Bka/25.10.2019

Ajith Thomson, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith Thomson, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharan @ Sharan.K.Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Shabeeb Irfan N.K. Vs State of Kerala

Ummer.v.a Vs the State of Kerala

Deepa Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh C. M. Vs State of Kerala

Abid K. Vs the State of Kerala