Dismissed

Sankar Raja M v. Vs S I of Police Thrissur Town East Police Station

Kerala HC17 Nov 2020Bail Appl./4909/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C filed by a bank manager accused of gold loan misappropriation, holding that custodial interrogation was necessary as a manager is responsible for ensuring pledged gold is returned to owners.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; applicant directed to surrender within two weeks for interrogation.

Sankar Raja M v Vs S I of Police Thrissur… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4909 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.2640/2020 OF Town East Police Station, Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SANKAR RAJA M V AGED 61 YEARS, S/O VELAYUTHAN, MAKAL HOUSE RAM NAGAR, POONKUNNAM THRISSUR - 680002

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU SRI.NAVANEETH.N.NATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S I OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.2640/2020) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-682031

¶12

2 JOJI PAUL SENIOR MANAGER CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK, MG ROAD THRISSUR IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 19/8/2020 IN CRL MA 1/2020

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.4909 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 17th day of November 2020

¶19

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶20

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶21

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.2640/2020 of Thrissur East Town Police Station, Thrissur, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case, in brief, is that

¶23

while the applicant was holding the post of Senior Manager of the Catholic Syrian Bank, M.G Road, Thrissur branch, he closed some gold loan accounts

¶24

of customers by impersonation, and allegedly misappropriated the gold pledged in the Bank by them. At least four customers approached the bank

¶25

with complaints, stating that without their

¶26

knowledge their loan account had been closed and

¶27

the gold redeemed from the bank and

¶28

Bail Appl..No.4909 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

misappropriated. The applicant states that he is

¶31

innocent, puts the entire blame on a lady named

¶32

Jayasree, who was the ‘Gold Mithra Agent’

¶33

appointed by the bank. She was instrumental in inducing various customers to apply for and

¶34

obtaining gold loans from the bank. The applicant

¶35

as well as the Assistant Manager are also implicated as accused in the crime. The applicant was suspended and retired from service pending an inquiry. The Assistant Manager was subjected to

¶36

penalty by a reduction in rank.

¶37

The applicant admits that he was the

¶38

Manager. But he was not in the know of things

¶39

regarding the closure of the gold loans and misappropriation of the gold by persons impersonating as customers. He totally

¶40

disassociated himself with the crime and therefore he seeks anticipatory bail. It is pointed out that

¶41

he is 61 years old and has retired from service.

¶42

Bail Appl..No.4909 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

There is no possibility of his fleeing from justice. Amount due to him as retiral benefit is still retained by the bank, to make good the loss sustained by the customers.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant

¶46

and the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant bank.

¶47

It is argued by the learned counsel

¶48

appearing for the de facto complainant bank that in order to restore the reputation of the bank, such incidents of misappropriation by employees of Bank cannot be tolerated. Stringent action needs

¶49

to be taken and unless the applicant is subjected to custodial interrogation, the entire facts and circumstances relating to the offence will not come to the fore. Hence, it is submitted that the applicant may not be granted anticipatory bail. The learned Public Prosecutor also supported the

¶50

Bail Appl..No.4909 OF 2020

¶51

¶52

arguments advanced by the learned counsel

¶53

appearing for the de facto complainant and submits that the applicant will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation to unravel the intricacies relating to the offence.

¶54

The learned counsel appearing for the

¶55

applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he had a long service with the bank without any room for complaint thus far.

¶56

It is only because of some lapse in supervision

¶57

that the others took advantage, and resulted in his being implicated in this crime in which he had no active role, submits the learned counsel for

¶58

the applicant. It is also pointed out that it is a Gold Mithra Agent named Jayasree who was the main perpetrator of the crime and persons who were brought by her impersonated as the debtors and

¶59

closed the gold loan at her behest. The applicant claims to have no knowledge about the incident.

¶60

Bail Appl..No.4909 OF 2020

¶61

After having heard the submissions made on

¶62

either side, I find that the applicant being the senior manager of the branch cannot pretend to be ignorant of the activities that take place in the bank, particularly pertaining to the closure of the gold loans. The bank is in the custody of the pledged gold loans as a trustee and in case it is returned, it is the responsibility of the Manager to see that the gold is returned to the real owner who pledged it. Therefore, the applicant cannot skulk from his responsibilities of being a Manager. He has to be subjected to the interrogation as claimed by the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel appearing for the bank. Under the circumstances, I find that

¶63

the applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary

¶64

remedy of anticipatory bail which can only be granted only in exceptional circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.Chidambaram v.

¶65

Bail Appl..No.4909 OF 2020

¶66

Directorate of Enforcement [2019 KHC 6886 SC (2019) 9 SCC 24].

¶67

Hence, the applicant is directed to surrender

¶68

before the investigating officer within two weeks.

¶69

In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation and recovery if any, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail which shall be considered by the Court keeping in view the mitigating circumstances pointed out by the counsel appearing for the applicant and also the proviso to Section 437 of the Cr.P.C, to the extent it is applicable.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Sankar Raja M v. Vs S I of Police Thrissur Town East Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sankar Raja M v. Vs S I of Police Thrissur Town East Police Station

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

Tintu John Vs State of Kerala

Rakhi Haridas Vs State of Kerala

Kunhi Moideen Vs State of Kerala

Asif Yousafali Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar @ Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala

Sanal Vs State of Kerala