Allowed

Shreemathi Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Aug 2020Bail Appl./513/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by Shreemathi Pillai, the 7th accused in a cheating case. The court found she was a manager performing duties under directors and not likely to abscond.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks; bond for Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties; conditions regarding witness intimidation and further offences.

Shreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.513 OF 2020

¶6

IN CRIME NO.32/2020 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED:

¶8

SHREEMATHI PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O. PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, SHANKARAMANGALATHU, KATTACHIRA, BHARANIKKAVU, KURATHIKADU, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 ADDL.R2 RAGHAVAN, S/O NEELAKANDAN, VRINDAVAN, VETTIKOTTU,KATTANAM, KURATHIKADU, ALAPPUZHA. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A NO. 1/2020.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.AMJAD ALI - SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.No.513 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 13th day of August 2020

¶18

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C

¶19

The applicant is arrayed as the 7th accused in Crime No.32 of 2020 of Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 421, 464 and 468 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶20

Accused 1 to 6, dishonestly induced the defacto complainant, to believe that high rate of interest and dividend would be given to him on deposit of money with the financial institution being conducted by them and giving them, he had deposited a sum of Rs.96,80,000/- during the period 28.04.2012 to 09.10.2018, while the applicant herein, was working as a Manager of the company. Share certificates were issued valued at Rs.1,000/- and bonds were also issued. However, neither any interest was paid nor was the money returned to the defacto complainant and he filed a complaint, in consequence of which,

¶21

B.A.No.513 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

the present crime was registered.

¶24

The applicant would contend that she is only the Manager of the company and that accused 1 to 6, were the Directors of the company and the applicant was only performing her duty as directed by the Directors of the company. She has absolutely no role in the alleged act of misappropriation or cheating as alleged by the prosecution. She is willing to co-operate with the investigation and therefore, she may be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶25

The defacto complainant did not appear, despite notice being served upon him. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The applicant was the Manger of Kerala Housing Finance Limited and she was taking care of the affairs in the Kayamkulam Branch of the company. It is submitted that the company has now gone into liquidation. The applicant is actively co-operating with the investigation. There is no possibility of her absconding and being a lady, and considering the present pandemic situation, she may be released on bail, submits the learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

¶26

B.A.No.513 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

The applicant has no criminal antecedents. Including this, there are only two cases against her of similar nature. She claims that she was only the Manager and has not swindled the money as alleged by the defacto complainant. She was a paid employee of the company and was acting in accordance with the directions, she received. Considering these aspects, I find that the applicant is not likely to abscond and there is no reason to believe that she may not co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of her being arrested, she shall be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following further conditions:

¶30

(i) She shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶31

(ii) She shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶32

B.A.No.513 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

(iii) She shall not get involved in similar offences during

¶35

the currency of the bail period.

¶36

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail.

¶37

The bail application is allowed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶40

NR/13/08/20

Shreemathi Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shreemathi Pillai 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

Muhammed Ali Vs Mr. Basudev Mandal

Franco Vs State of Kerala

Stanly Paul Vs Public Prosecutor

Sunitha Kumari Vs State of Kerala

Sunitha Kumari, Vs State of Kerala

Haseena Vs State of Kerala