Allowed

Sreemathi Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2020Bail Appl./5620/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed anticipatory bail to Sreemathi Pillai, a manager accused of participating in a fraud involving deposited funds. The court found no material indicating her personal enrichment and approved bail pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within two weeks, execution of bond of Rs.1 lakh, and conditions of cooperation.

Sreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5620 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.201/2020 OF Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SREEMATHI PILLAI AGED 51 YEARS SANKARAMANGALATHU, KATTACHIRA, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690503

¶9

BY ADV. SHRI.ARUN KRISHNA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶12

2 SUKUMARAN AGED 71 YEARS KARUKATHALA MEKATHIL, KATTILKAAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM 690542

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.DEVARAJAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.T.N.SREEKALA R2 BY ADV. SHRI.BABU M. R2 BY ADV. SMT.ANCY THANKACHAN R2 BY ADV. SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN

¶14

OTHERS PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5621/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶20

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶21

Bail Appl..No.5621 OF 2020

¶22

CRIME NO.176/2020 OF Kayamkulam Police Station, Alappuzha

¶23

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶24

SREEMATHI PILLAI AGED 51 YEARS SANKARAMANGALATHU, KATTACHIRA, BHARANIKAVU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690503

¶25

BY ADV. SHRI.ARUN KRISHNA

¶26

RESPONDENT/S:

¶27

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

¶28

2 JAYAPRAKASH M.S AGED 52 YEARS CHEMPAKASSERIL, PATHIYOOR EAST, KERIKKADU P.O, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690508.

¶29

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5620/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

BA Nos.5620 & 5621/2020

¶32

¶33

COMMON ORDER

¶34

[ Bail Appl..5620/2020, Bail Appl..5621/2020 ] Dated this the 3rd day of November 2020

¶35

Applications seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶36

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.201/2020 and the second accused in Crime No.176/2020 of Kayamkulam Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 421, 464 and 468 IPC, for which she has filed these applications seeking anticipatory bail. The applicant is also an accused in several other cases and in one of the crimes, i.e. Crime No.32/2020, she had approached this Court for anticipatory bail and vide order dated 13.8.2020, she was granted bail in BA No.513/2020.

¶37

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused in these crimes had dishonestly induced the de facto complainants to believe that a higher rate of interest and dividend would be paid to them on deposited money and accordingly, the conductors of the Company amassed a sum of Rs.96,80,000/- during the period 28.4.2012 to 9.10.2018. The applicant was allegedly working as a Manager in the Kayamkulam Branch of the Company. She had also issued share certificates and bonds for and on behalf of the Company and she was the one who collected the amounts for the Company acting as the Manager of the Company. The applicant states that she was only performing her duty as a salaried Manager under the instructions of the Directors of the Company.

¶38

BA Nos.5620 & 5621/2020

¶39

¶40

She had no role in either the misappropriation or the amassing of wealth. It is stated that she had not earned anything personally and the entire amount which she had collected had gone to the accounts of the Company. She was not therefore enriched personally. The de facto complainant has appeared in these applications and has serious objections to granting of pre-arrest bail to the applicant stating that their hard-earned money was deposited in the aforesaid institution in expectation for the higher rate of interest.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶42

It is submitted by the learned Prosecutor that the applicant was working as the Manager of the Company, named Kerala Housing Finance Ltd., which itself had deceived many of its customers under the belief that it is a Company which has got something to do with the state government. However, it is admitted that the Company has now gone into liquidation, and therefore, the assets of the Company will have to be distributed, in accordance with the law. The applicant is a lady who has been employed for salary in the Company and in all those cases, which have been taken against the Company, she has been implicated as an accused for the reason that she is the one who had received the money as deposits from the customers. The complicity of the applicant to the extent that she had received the money is established. But, at the same time, there is no material to show that she was personally enriched by these transactions for which

¶43

BA Nos.5620 & 5621/2020

¶44

¶45

further investigation may be required. There is no reason to believe that she will not cooperate with the investigation and would abscond. Therefore, I find that the applicant is entitled to a prearrest bail.

¶46

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

¶47

(i) She shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶48

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

¶49

(iii) She shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

¶50

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Sreemathi Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreemathi 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

Cristambel Jonson Vs Public Prosecutor

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Anandu Ghosh a Vs State of Kerala

Bhadran Vs State of Kerala

Sreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Muralidharan Vs State of Kerala