Allowed

Sherief K.a., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Oct 2019Bail Appl./5718/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the first accused in a criminal case involving alleged misconduct and misappropriation of company property. The court deleted the theft charge and found that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to a bond of Rs.50,000 and sureties; conditions include cooperation with investigation, appearance on Saturdays, and no inducement of witnesses.

Sherief K.a., Vs the 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

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5718 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 722/2019 DATED 24-07-2019 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.299/2019 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SHERIEF K.A., AGED 42 YEARS S/O.ABDUL KHADER, ARAKKAL HOUSE, CHERPULASSERI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679 322.

¶14

3 ADDL.R3 MUHAMMED SALEEM S/O MARAKKAR, AGED 45 YEARS, KONDETH HOUSE, THIRURKKAD, MANKADA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679324.

¶15

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/08/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019 IN BA.5718/2019.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI B JAYASURYA SR PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No.5718 OF 2019

¶21

..2..

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

Procedure.

¶25

The applicant herein is the first accused in crime No.299 of 2019 of the Perinthalmanna Police Station which was registered on 25.05.2019 under Sections 379, 403, 406, 417, 418, 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The second accused in the aforesaid crime is one Fathima Shuhaima. The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint lodged by the additional third respondent before the Station House Officer, Pernithalmanna Police Station.

¶26

In his complaint, which is dated 23.05.2019, it is alleged that the de facto complainant is the Managing Director of Image Mobiles and Computers and Image VTS solutions. The accused were appointed as General Manager and Regional Manager of Image VTS solutions. It is alleged that on 01.10.2018, an agreement was entered into between M/s Accolade Electronics Private Ltd. and Image Mobiles

¶27

Bail Appl..No.5718 OF 2019

¶28

..3..

¶29

and Computers for sale and distribution of IT enabled products. As the General Manager, the applicant herein was in charge of sales and distribution of the products. Though the applicant was diligent in his work in the initial stages, later he started acting against the company. It is alleged that the applicant did not furnish proper account statements of the company and also started acting of his own. It is also alleged that 473 GPS equipment were taken away from the company store by the applicant without accounting for the same. It is also alleged that some amounts were received by the applicant in his own account instead of crediting the proceeds in the accounts of the company.

¶30

Sri. K.Rakesh the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there is no truth in the allegations levelled against him. According to the learned counsel, the applicant had worked for the company with all diligence and the accusations now levelled against him has no semblance of truth. He would urge that certain GPS equipment were supplied to the Kannur Water Supply, but they were on a rental basis. However, due to nonpayment of subscription, the software provider withdrew their support and the

¶31

Bail Appl..No.5718 OF 2019

¶32

..4..

¶33

systems stopped functioning. The District Collector addressed the applicant in his capacity as the General manager of Image VTS solutions and asked him to remedy the situation. He was left with no alternative, but to make alternate arrangements. According to the learned counsel, this was to avoid any coercive action against him. He would further contend that the nature of allegations in Annexure-A complaint would show that the complainant has no consistent version.

¶34

The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that in the course of investigation, it was revealed that Section 379 of the IPC was not made out and hence the same was deleted and a report to that effect was submitted before the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 25.05.2019. In the said report, the Officer has stated that, the statement of the informant was further recorded and he has disclosed that the GPS devices were not lost from the Office.

¶35

Sri. C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, the learned counsel

¶36

appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that huge loss was sustained by the de facto complainant consequent to the acts committed by the applicant herein. According to the learned counsel, the allegations are extremely grave and if the applicant is granted an

¶37

Bail Appl..No.5718 OF 2019

¶38

..5..

¶39

order of pre-arrest bail, it would adversely effect the investigation.

¶40

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused Annexure-A complaint and Annexures-E and F produced by the applicant herein. I have also gone through the case diary and the records which have been produced by the de facto complainant as Annexure-R3(A) to R3(C). The report submitted by the Investigating Officer before the learned Magistrate deleting section 379 of the IPC and the reasons narrated by the officer for the same would show that the main allegation against the applicant has no legs to stand. Insofar as the rest of the allegations are concerned, it appears that it relates to inefficiency on the part of the applicant in conducting his duty as the General Manager of the company. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think that his custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary for an effective investigation.

¶41

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

¶42

..6..

¶43

Bail Appl..No.5718 OF 2019

¶44

each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶45

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.

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶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., JUDGE

¶51

kkj/29.10.19

Sherief K.a., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sherief K.a., v. the 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

Jithinraj.v.J, Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Sreeraj Sreenivas M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Saleena K. Vs State of Kerala

Shafeeque Vs State of Kerala