Dismissed

Jophy.P.Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Sept 2020Bail Appl./4103/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed petition for anticipatory bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. in cheque bounce/misappropriation case. Held petitioner remained director on date of offence despite resignation as MD. Directed surrender within two weeks. Order is thin.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender to investigating officer within two weeks; liberty to apply for regular bail before jurisdictional Magistrate thereafter granted.

Jophy.P.Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.4103 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.110/2019 OF Peechi Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JOPHY P.JACOB, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.JACOB, PADAVEETIYIL HOUSE, POOVANCHIRA, THRISSUR, PIN -680 652.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.

¶12

2 K.L. JOSE, S/O LOOKOSE, KOLAMBAYIL HOUSE, ALPARA DESAM, PANANCHERY VILLAGE, PEECHI PO, PEECHI, THRISSUR.*

¶13

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 24/7/2020 IN CRL. MA 1/2020

¶14

OTHERS PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A.No.4103 of 2020

¶18

-2-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Dated this the 24th day of September 2020

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

The applicant is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.110/2019 of Peechi Police Station, for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 409 and 420 of the I.P.C. and under Sections 76 and 79 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant was the Managing Director of one Arsha Chits Pvt.Ltd., Pattikkad and caused the defacto complainant to believe and dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- in two chitties on the assurance that the amount would be repaid on termination of the period prescribed as per the chitties and failed to do so and thereby misappropriated the amount and cheated the defacto complainant and thus committed the offence under the I.P.C. and also the offence punishable under the Chit Funds Act.

¶24

The applicant states that the allegations are not true and that as early as in 2015, the applicant had resigned from the Managing Directorship, and therefore,

¶25

B.A.No.4103 of 2020

¶26

-3-

¶27

he cannot be found responsible for the alleged act of the company during the year 2016 and therefore he is entitled to be granted an anticipatory bail. It is further stated that O.S.No.4330/2017 is pending before the Munsiff's Court filed by the applicant and the disputes between the applicant and others will have to be settled in that civil suit.

¶28

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that he had only resigned from the Managing Directorship of the company and continues to be the Director and a person responsible for the functioning of the company during the year 2016 also, and therefore, he cannot be exonerated from the liability of the alleged offence. The applicant had approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, but the same was dismissed by the Court indicating that he is not entitled to the extra-ordinary remedy of an anticipatory bail in such a case, where he has committed the offence alleged.

¶30

On perusal of the resignation letter, which is produced as Annexure-1, the applicant had only resigned from the Managing Directorship of the company on 06.10.2015. There is absolutely no document produced by the applicant to show that he was not one of the

¶31

B.A.No.4103 of 2020

¶32

-4-

¶33

Directors on the alleged date of occurrence. The dispute between the applicant and other Directors is to be settled by the civil court. But that is not mean that the applicant is altogether innocent in this case. The investigation is still in its infancy and the applicant will have to be interrogated for the purpose of finding out the exact role which was played by him in the alleged transaction. Hence, he is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of an anticipatory bail. He is therefore directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and the investigating officer shall, after interrogation and recovery, if any, produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate and he shall be at liberty to apply for regular bail before the jurisdictional Magistrate, which shall be disposed of preferably on the very same date.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Jophy.P.Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jophy.P.Jacob 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

Sajan .S.S Vs Public Prosecutor

Sahadulla Vs State of Kerala

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala

Muthas @ Muthukutty Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Abdul Azeez.v.P Vs State of Kerala

Pranjith A.L. Vs State of Kerala