Dismissed

O. N. Yesodharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2019Bail Appl./8180/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for pre-arrest bail filed by two accusedpersons. The court held that the allegations involved misappropriation of bank funds and found that the applicants had not established that the case was frivolous or vexatious at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail dismissed; applicants directed to appear before the investigating officer within seven days.

O. N. Yesodharan 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

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.8180 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.200/2019 OF MALAYALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 4:

¶8

1 O. N. YESODHARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. NANU, OLICKAL VEEDU, VADASSERIKKARA P. O., MALAYALAPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

2 JAISAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O. MATHEW, THAKIDIYIL VEEDU, IDATHARA, VADASSERIKKARA P. O., MALAYALAPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.200/2019), MALAYALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶14

*** 2 ADDL.R2:**

¶15

SHAJI M.PHILIP, AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANDAKATHIL HOUSE, KUMPLAMPOIKA PO, PATHANAMTHITTA-689661.

¶16

*** ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER 29.11.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019.**

¶17

SRI AJITH MURALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Bail Appl..No.8180 OF 2019

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

The applicants herein are accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crime No.200 of 2019 of the Malayalappuzha Police Station registered under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC.

¶24

Crux of the prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant, who has been arrayed as the additional 2^nd respondent herein along with his near relatives deposited a total sum of Rs.19.14 lakhs in the Kumplampoika Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., No.3526. On attaining maturity, when the amount was demanded back, the same was not disbursed. It is alleged that the 1^st applicant herein as the present Secretary of the Bank and the 2^nd applicant as the erstwhile Secretary committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.

¶25

Sri.S.Muhammed Haneef, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants herein has nothing to do with the allegations. The learned counsel would urge that the applicants herein are merely employees of the Bank, drawing a meager salary and for the failure of the Bank to return back the amount on its maturity, they cannot be held responsible. He would contend that a sum in excess of Rs.35 Crores is due

¶26

Bail Appl..No.8180 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

from various persons but the liability of the Bank to its depositors is only Rs.25 Crores. The embargo in disbursing the amount occurred due to the moratorium announced by the State Government against initiating recovery proceedings. By no stretch of imagination, would the offence alleged against the applicants be attracted is the submission.

¶29

The additional 2^nd respondent entered appearance through counsel. According to the learned counsel, the hard-earned money of hundreds of poor investors like the additional 2^nd respondent were siphoned off by the officers of the Bank. It is submitted that it is too early to state that the applicants herein have no role to play in the misappropriation.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that as to whether the applicants herein are responsible or not will be revealed only after investigation. If the applicants are armed with an order of pre-arrest bail, it would adversely effect the investigation, is the submission.

¶31

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the materials made available. This Court by order dated 15.11.2019 had granted an interim order deferring the arrest of the applicants on the submission of the learned counsel that steps shall be taken to clear at least some portion of the amount. I also find that a Single Judge of this Court has already passed an order directing the Bank to disburse the amounts to

¶32

Bail Appl..No.8180 OF 2019

¶33

¶34

the investors. It is submitted across the Bar that the contempt proceedings have been initiated. The counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the Bank has filed a Review Petition and the same is also pending. The crime has been registered and the investigation is still in the early stages. It would not be proper at this stage to conclude that the allegation against the applicants herein are frivolous and vexatious. Even otherwise, I do not think that the applicants have made out a case for pre-arrest bail.

¶35

Sri. Muhammed Haneef, the learned counsel submits that if this Court is not inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail, the applicants be permitted to co-operate with the investigation. In view of the fervent submission of the learned counsel, I direct the applicants to appear before the investigating officer within a period of seven days from today. They shall be thoroughly interrogated and they shall be produced before the court having jurisdiction. If an application for regular bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits, on the same day itself.

¶36

This application is dismissed.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

¶41

DSV/20.12.19

O. N. Yesodharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O. N. Yesodharan 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

Pias, Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Sajith Vs State of Kerala

Akhil N. Vs State of Kerala

Sreejan v Sagar, Vs the Station House Officer

Noorjahan, Vs State of Kerala

Sumitha @ Sumi, Vs State of Kerala