Allowed

Anwar M M v. Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC10 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4718/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the third accused, who was in custody, in an investigation involving misappropriation of funds from the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund. The Court was satisfied that further detention was not justifiable despite the gravity of the charges.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on conditions including execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, and no influence on witnesses.

Anwar M M Vs Public Prosecutor — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4718 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.83/2020 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

ANWAR M M S/O MUHAMMADHKUTTY, MARAYAKULATTHU HOUSE, RAJAGIRI VALLEY P.O., PATHINJIMUGAL, KAKKANADU ERNAKULAM, PIN-682020

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PP SRI.S.SAJJU

¶13

BY SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SENIOR GOVT.PLEADER

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2020, THE COURT ON 10-08-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Bail Appl..No.4718 OF 2020

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This application for bail is submitted by the third accused in Crime No.83/2020 of Thrikkakkara Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 403, 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶19

According to the prosecution, first accused was the section clerk in the Redressal Cell of the Ernakulam District Collector, constituted for the release of the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund. As per the system prevalent in the cell, amounts due to beneficiaries who have suffered loss due to the 2018 floods would be distributed from the Flood Relief Fund through BIMS (Bill Information Management System) software. The system was user name enabled and password protected. Amounts would be directly remitted in the bank account of the beneficiaries. Sometimes transfer to accounts of certain beneficiaries

¶20

¶21

Bail Appl..No.4718 OF 2020

¶22

could not be completed because of shortcomings like incorrect account numbers, incorrect beneficiary names, minimum balance restriction etc. Such funds used to revert back to the treasury account and kept in a separate head. This was known to the first accused who was conversant with the digital transfer method of funds. According to the prosecution, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with his friend, the second accused and with the aid of the remaining accused, transferred huge amounts from the returned funds to the joint accounts of the 3^rd and 4^th accused as well as the 6^th and 7^th accused. 4^th accused is the wife of the 3^rd accused. The 3^rd and 4^th accused had a joint account in the Ayyanad Service Co-operative Bank, Vazhakkala. The prime accused allegedly solicited the assistance of 3^rd and 4^th accused to draw the amount diverted from the CMDRF through the bank account of the petitioner herein. An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) was initially transferred and drawn through the account of the petitioner herein. When the next

¶23

¶24

Bail Appl..No.4718 OF 2020

¶25

installment reached, bank officials got suspicious and conducted an enquiry. It led to the disclosure of the conspiracy of the accused. Crime was registered against the accused.

¶26

The petitioner, pursuant to this Court's order in BA.No.1680/2020 surrendered before the Investigating Officer on 24.06.2020 and he was arrested after interrogation. On production before the court below, he was remanded. He is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, who vehemently opposed the application. A detailed statement has also been filed by the Investigation Officer.

¶28

The specific allegation against the petitioner herein is that he along with A4 had aided the prime accused A1 and A2 to collect Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only), misappropriated from the Chief Minster's Distress Relief Fund and that he misused the amount. The prosecution has an allegation that the

¶29

¶30

Bail Appl..No.4718 OF 2020

¶31

petitioner was privy to conspiracy and was aware that it was public amount. Records reveal that Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees five lakhs only) had in fact come to the account of the petitioner. It is also seen on record that the petitioner has withdrawn the entire amount by separate withdrawals. Out of it, Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each was transferred to prime accused by two transfers. The remaining amounts were withdrawn by him in two installments of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) each. The investigation has a specific case that this amount was shared by the petitioner with A1 and A2.

¶32

The specific contention of the petitioner was that, the entire amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) was given to the prime accused. He has not shared any amount and he was not aware that it was public money. To substantiate it, the learned counsel relied on the fact that immediately after it was brought to his notice that it was the Government money, he approached A1 and A2, persuaded them to

¶33

¶34

Bail Appl..No.4718 OF 2020

¶35

repay the money and got it repaid. He had also met the District Collector and informed about the true facts. It was also pointed out by him that as per the remand report he had signed withdrawal slip for Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two lakhs only) and entrusted to the prime accused. This shows his bonafides, it was contended.

¶36

It is seen that the investigation, in, so far as it relates to the petitioner, has progressed. Generally the allegation is serious. Even though, the prosecution has a case that the petitioner has not co-operated with the investigating agency, that by itself cannot be a reason to continue his detention. The prosecution has also no case that apart from this transaction, petitioner is involved in any other monetary transaction with the prime accused. Having considered these facts and the duration of his detention, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶37

The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the

¶38

Bail Appl..No.4718 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

jurisdictional court.

¶41

He shall appear before the investigating officer

¶42

as and when called for and shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶43

He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate or

¶44

try to influence the witnesses.

¶45

He shall not get involved in any other identical offence and the involvement if any, will be a ground for seeking cancellation of bail.

¶46

The bail application is allowed.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶49

R.AV

Anwar M M v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anwar M M v. Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.U.Mohammed Kunju Vs State of Kerala

S.Manimekhala Vs State of Kerala

Safarulla K. Vs State of Kerala

C.P.John Vs State of Kerala

Jinu Jayan Vs State of Kerala

Girish Babu G. Vs the Director of Vigilance