Partly allowed

Raji Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6048/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by three accused in a breach of trust case. While the first applicant was denied bail due to serious allegations of pilfering funds and records, the second and third applicants were granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for accused 2 and 3 directed to surrender within two weeks; accused 1 denied anticipatory bail.

Raji Krishnan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6048 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.570/2020 OF Kadakkal Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 3:

¶8

1 RAJI KRISHNAN AGED 32 YEARS RAJAVILASAM , SANKARAPURAM KOTTUKKAL P O, ANCHAL , KOLLAM KOLLAM, PIN 691306 691306

¶9

2 RAJANI V AGED 51 YEARS NITHIN HOUSE, CHANAPPARA P .O, KADAKKAL P O, KOLLAM, PIN: 691536 691536

¶10

3 SALIL KUMAR P T, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 44 YEARS RAJAVILASAM , SANKARAPURAM KOTTUKKAL P O, ANCHAL, KOLLAM KOLLAM, PIN 691306 . 691306

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.6048 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Dated this the 10th day of November 2020

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438

¶23

Cr.PC.

¶24

The applicants are accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.570/2020 of Kadakkal Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the first applicant was the Secretary of Milk Producers Cooperative Society, Thekkil and the de facto complainant is the President of that Society. It is alleged that the first applicant submitted a post dated letter on 10.3.2020 submitting a resignation with effect from 31.3.2020 and instead of working till 31.3.2020 as agreed, she left the place taking with her the records pertaining to the accounts maintained in the Society and also pilfered a sum of Rs.70,000/which was the amount collected vide local delivery in connivance with accused 2 and 3. The second applicant is a milk tester and the third applicant is the husband of the second applicant. The applicants state that the first applicant alone was employed as the Secretary who was entrusted with the alleged documents and the money and the offence is not attracted

¶26

as against accused 2 and 3 since they have not committed any criminal

¶27

Bail Appl..No.6048 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

breach of trust and nothing was entrusted to them.

¶30

It is further stated that offence under Section 380 IPC will not be attracted because the applicants did not steal the amount from the possession of anyone else and therefore, the applicants having no criminal antecedents may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

It is true that offence under Sections 403 and 406 IPC for dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust would be attracted only against a person who was in possession of the property entrusted to him. In the instant case, it is accused No.1 who is the first applicant herein, who as Secretary of the Society was in possession of the records and the money which she had allegedly misappropriated. Accused 2 is only a milk testing person and not connected with any of the other affairs of the Society and the third applicant is only her husband, who is not even employed in the Society. Hence, the aforesaid two offences will not be attracted against applicants 2 and 3.

¶33

An offence under Section 380 IPC may be attracted as against the applicants 2 and 3 because they were not in possession of the money, which they had allegedly taken. But the specific prosecution case is that the money entrusted to the first applicant was pilfered by her with the

¶34

Bail Appl..No.6048 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

collusion of applicants 2 and 3. Under the circumstances, it is doubtful whether an offence under Section 380 would be attracted and only an offence under Section 381 would be attracted.

¶37

The learned Prosecutor submits that the case is still under investigation and the appropriate provisions of law applicable in this case may subsequently be altered as and when the investigation progresses. Therefore, merely for the reason, that wrong sections have been stated in the FIR will not enable the applicants to be enlarged on bail. It is submitted by the learned Prosecutor that in view of the specific allegation that it is the first applicant who had taken away the records and money with her, she will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation to retrieve those items. Under the circumstances, the first applicant definitely is not entitled to anticipatory bail, submits the learned Prosecutor.

¶38

After having considered the submissions made on either side and having perused the records available, I find that there are very serious allegations made against the first applicant, who is employed as the Secretary of the Society for having pilfered a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the Society. She had allegedly even submitted her resignation to the Society, which indicates that she had the intention to remove the records and the money from the Society. She definitely will have to be questioned regarding that. As far as the applicants 2 and 3 are concerned, they did

¶39

Bail Appl..No.6048 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

not have any active involvement in the act of theft. None of the applicants has any criminal antecedents also. Even though an offence under Section 380 IPC may not be attracted as against the first applicant, an offence under Section 381 IPC which is equally grave, is attracted as against her because she was employed in the Society when she allegedly pilfered the amount. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I find that the first applicant will have to cooperate with the investigation and to be questioned and therefore, she is not entitled to anticipatory bail. The applicants 2 and 3 are entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶42

In the result, the bail application is allowed in part. The applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation, applicants 2 and 3 shall be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

¶43

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation. (ii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶44

(iii) They shall not get involved in any similar offence during the

¶45

Bail Appl..No.6048 OF 2020

¶46

¶47

currency of the bail.

¶48

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.

¶49

In the event of the first applicant being arrested, after interrogation and recovery, if any, she shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where she is at liberty to apply for regular bail. The application for regular bail so filed by the first applicant shall be entertained and disposed of by

¶50

the jurisdictional court, on merits, preferably on the very same day itself.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Raji Krishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raji Krishnan 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

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Indrajith Vs State of Kerala

Thrishna Vs State of Kerala

T P Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Akhil P R Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Khan Vs State of Kerala