Partly allowed

Dhanya.P.K, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Oct 2019Bail Appl./5283/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted a partially allowed anticipatory bail petition. Bail was dismissed for the first accused due to serious misappropriation allegations risking investigation integrity. Bail was granted for the second accused (husband) since allegations against him were vague and custodial interrogation would not be warranted.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail dismissed for 1st applicant; 2nd applicant released on bail on Rs.50,000 bond with sureties subject to appearance for interrogation and cooperation.

Dhanya.P.K, Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | 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 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 19TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5283 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.632/2019 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS.1&2:

¶8

1 DHANYA.P.K., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. BOBBY N.K, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAINOOR P.O, THRISSUR.

¶9

2 BOBBY N.K., AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, NELLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAINOOR P.O, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT

¶11

RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031

¶13

ADDL. P.B.SURENDRAN, PRESIDENT, R2 THRISSUR INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY OF ORNAMENT WORKERS, MYLIPADAM, CHEMBUKAVU PO, THRISSUR-680020.

¶14

ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30/7/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Bail Appl..No.5283 OF 2019

¶20

..2..

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The applicants herein are husband and wife and they have

¶24

been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 & 2 in Crime No. 632/2019 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station, registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 477A & 120B of the IPC.

¶25

The case of the prosecution is that the 1^st applicant used to work as the Secretary of the Thrissur Industrial Co-operative Society Ornament Workers Society during the period from 2007 to March, 2017. A complaint was lodged before the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur East Police Station alleging that during the period of her employment, the applicants manipulated and fabricated the records and misappropriated huge sums of money from the society. It is alleged that the 2^nd accused actively aided the 1^st accused in committing the offences.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that there is no truth in the allegations. He would further contend that the 1^st accused was victimized by the office bearers of the society and she had to proceed on leave. He would also refer to Annexure-B complaint filed by the 1^st applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶27

Instruments Act pursuant to dishonour of a cheque issued by the

¶28

Bail Appl..No.5283 OF 2019

¶29

..3..

¶30

former office bearers of the society and Annexure-C complaint lodged by her before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. According to the learned counsel, it is much after the filing of Annexures-B & C complaints that the de facto complainant had approached the police in the month of May, 2019 and set the law in motion. It is further submitted that the 2^nd applicant is a clerk in the GST Department of the State and he has nothing to do with the acts committed by the 1^st accused.

¶31

Sri.K.I.Sageer, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, has very strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that a detailed complaint was lodged by the president of the society, detailing the manipulations carried out by the 1^st applicant, which is self explanatory. According to the learned counsel, by the acts of the accused, the society has incurred a loss of over Rs.1 Crore.

¶32

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has also opposed the prayer.

¶33

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. In the detailed complaint lodged by the party respondent, the nature of misappropriation carried out by the 1^st applicant is mentioned in detail. Large amounts of public money is involved and having gone through the records, I am not in a position to

¶34

conclude that the allegations against the 1^st applicant are frivolous. A

¶35

Bail Appl..No.5283 OF 2019

¶36

..4..

¶37

proper investigation is to be carried out and arming the 1^st applicant with an order of pre-arrest bail is likely to adversely affect the investigation. However, the allegation against the 2^nd applicant is vague and unsubstantiated. He appears to have been arrayed as the accused as he is the husband of the 1^st accused. In the facts and circumstances, his custodial interrogation does not appear to be warranted.

¶38

In the result, this application will stand partly allowed. The application insofar as it concerns the 1^st applicant will stand dismissed. She shall surrender before the Investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. If she files an application for regular bail on her production before the jurisdictional Magistrate, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits. The 2^nd 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:

¶39

i) The 2^nd 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.

¶40

Bail Appl..No.5283 OF 2019

¶41

..5..

¶42

ii) He 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.

¶43

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

¶44

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.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶47

Bka/11.10.2019

Dhanya.P.K, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanya.P.K, 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

George Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Biju C Raju, Vs the State of Kerala

Nanda Gopal Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Mani, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Abdul Samad P.K., Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala