Allowed

Pradeep Kumar P.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2022Bail Appl./2175/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was admitted and allowed. The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a senior branch manager accused of aiding in a fraudulent overdraft transaction, subject to specific conditions including the execution of a bond and instructions to the police regarding ongoing investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties and instructions to appear as required.

Pradeep Kumar P.K Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2175 OF 2022

¶6

(CRIME NO.397/2018 OF Town East Police Station, Thrissur)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

PRADEEP KUMAR P.K, AGED 52 YEARS
S/O KOPPAN, PAMBUNGAL HOUSE, UDALAKKAVU DESOM, ADATTU
VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA - 680 551.
BY ADVS.
RAJIT
RAMAKRISHNAN M.N.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

*ADDL.R2VEERANKUTTY T.M.
S/O.MOIDEEN, THOPPILTHODI HOUSE, KUMBALAKKODU DESOM,
PAZHAYANNOOR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 587.

¶12

* ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN CRL.MA.NO.1/2022
DATED 03.08.2022 IN BA NO.1987/2022

¶13

RENJITH B.MARAR

¶14

PP SRI.M.C.ASHI

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 2175 OF 2022 2

¶17

VIJU ABRAHAM, J

¶18

BA No.2175 of 2022

¶19

Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2022

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶22

The Petitioner has been arrayed as accused no. 4 in

¶23

Crime no. 397/2018 of Thrissur Town East Police Station,

¶24

alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420, r/w 34 IPC.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is that, to the knowledge of the petitioner, the above numbered crime was registered upon a complaint made by one Veerankutty against the accused persons, alleging that accused no.1 Shoukkath Ali and his agents had cheated him by violating his trust, by way of mortgaging his property at the bank and using the same to withdraw the amounts for their personal purposes and caused huge debts to the defacto complainant with the help of the other accused persons.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that crime was registered as early as 2018 and he was questioned

¶27

by the investigating officer on several occasions. Learned

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 2175 OF 2022 3

¶29

counsel further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime and he has performed only his official duty as a senior branch manager.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that his property has been mortgaged to the bank without his knowledge and that the mortgage amount was transferred to the account of the first accused.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that an application for overdraft facility to the tune of Rs.10 crores was submitted by the first accused before the Thrissur District Co-operative Bank, (now Kerala Bank). Petitioner herein is a senior branch manager and based on the overdraft application an amount of Rs.2.80 crores was sanctioned and the amount has been transferred to the account of the establishment as per the direction of the first accused.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations and taking into consideration that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In the

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO. 2175 OF 2022 4

¶34

result, this application is allowed. Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime no. 397/2018 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, on 12.08.2022 at 11 am for interrogation and also make himself available for interrogation on any other day/days as directed by the investigating officer. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in Crime no. 397/2018 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, he shall be produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court and he shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a

¶36

sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the

¶37

likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court,

¶38

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime no. 397/2018 of Thrissur Town East Police Station, as and when called for,

¶39

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to influence the defacto complainant or interfere

¶40

BAIL APPL. NO. 2175 OF 2022 5

¶41

with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime no. 397/2018

¶42

of Thrissur Town East Police Station,

¶43

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any

¶44

other crime while on bail.

¶45

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime no. 397/2018 of Thrissur Town

¶46

East Police Station, may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶47

It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by the petitioner even when the petitioner is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663).

¶48

sd/-

¶49

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶50

R.AV

Pradeep Kumar P.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar P.K 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

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Manikuttan @ Sharan. P.U. Vs State of Kerala

Bala Ravanan B Vs State of Kerala

Sandhya P. S Vs State of Kerala

Vaishakan B.P. Vs State of Kerala

Mr.Siyad Shaji, Vs the State of Kerala