Dismissed

K Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2020Bail Appl./4772/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail. The applicant was accused of misappropriating lakhs from a cooperative bank by forging documents. The court held that given the gravity of the economic offence and the need for custodial interrogation, anticipatory bail was not warranted, directing the applicant to surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to surrender before investigating officer within two weeks.

K Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4772 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2011/2020 DATED 07-072020 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

CRIME NO.182/2015 OF Nedumudi Police Station, Alappuzha

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

K SURESH KUMAR AGED 46 YEARS PANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, ATTUVATHALA KAINAKARY KUTTANADU, ALAPPUZHA 688504

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU HARSHAKUMAR SHRI. BINU SAM THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶13

2 INSPECTOR OF POLICE NEDUMUDI POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA 688505

¶14

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Bail Appl..No.4772 OF 2020

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 5th day of October 2020

¶20

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

¶21

Applicant is the first accused in Crime

¶22

No.182/2015 of Nedumudi Police Station, Alappuzha, for having allegedly committed offences punishable

¶23

under Sections 177, 409, 420, 468, and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶25

applicant along with the other co-accused, in furtherance of common intention, misappropriated sums to the tune of Rs.28,78,891.41/- from the

¶26

Kainakary Service Co-operative Bank between the

¶27

period from 2009-2013 by forging documents

¶28

allegedly executed by members to create the evidence that they have received the amounts for

¶29

Bail Appl..No.4772 OF 2020

¶30

the purpose of agricultural activities.

¶31

The applicant would contend that the 2nd

¶32

accused has already been granted anticipatory bail

¶33

and the role of the applicant is more than what

¶34

was that of the 2^nd accused and it is a crime of

¶35

the year 2015 relating to an alleged offence committed during the period 2009-2013 and therefore, he may not be incarcerated. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation. He has not so far absconded and therefore he may be

¶36

directed to co-operate with the investigation and released on anticipatory bail.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant

¶38

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

The learned Public Prosecutor has

¶40

vehemently opposed the application for bail pointing to the fact that lakhs of rupees are involved in the alleged misappropriation and

¶41

therefore considering the gravity of the offence,

¶42

Bail Appl..No.4772 OF 2020

¶43

the applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary

¶44

remedy of anticipatory bail, in this case, considering the repercussions of the acts

¶45

committed by the applicant in swindling huge sums of money from the members of the co-operative

¶46

society. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in

¶47

P.Chidambaram vs Directorate of

¶48

Enforcement[2019KHC(6886)] held that the power under Section 438 being an extraordinary remedy

¶49

has to be exercised sparingly more so in cases of economic offences.

¶50

During the period the applicant was working as Secretary, swindled huge sums of money forging documents. It is true that the investigation has been slow and the applicant’s involvement has been detected of late only, but that will not exonerate the role of the applicant. In case he co-operates

¶51

with the investigation, his involvement and

¶52

gravity may be lessened but nevertheless, at the

¶53

Bail Appl..No.4772 OF 2020

¶54

¶55

very outset it has to be held that the applicant

¶56

has allegedly committed falsification of the

¶57

amount to the tune of more than 28 lakhs and

¶58

therefore, the investigation cannot be stalled for the non-availability of the applicant and the documents which would be necessary. Custodial interrogation is definitely an important part of such economic offences and therefore, considering the dictum of the decision in Chidambaram's case, I find that the applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail.

¶59

The applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the

¶60

event of his being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court and he is at

¶61

liberty to apply for regular bail which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the very same day, considering the present pandemic situation and the exigency of the applicant's

¶62

Bail Appl..No.4772 OF 2020

¶63

incarceration in the process of investigation.

¶64

With these observations, the application is

dismissed.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

K Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Suresh Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Nazim K.S Vs State of Kerala

Shihana.S Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sharafudheen Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Anuroop, Vs State of Kerala

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Kerala