Kerala High Court
Rajesh Ponnan vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 5559 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1215/2021 OF THE SESSIONS COURT,
ERNAKULAM
CRIME NO.268/2021 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION
PETITIONER:
RAJESH PONNAN
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.PONNAN P., RESIDING AT PRASARA, CHERUVICKAL,
SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 017.
BY ADV A.ABDUL NABEEL
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INFO PARK
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED THROUGH GOVERNMENT
PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP - SRI. PRASANTH M.P.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 5559 OF 2021 2
ORDER
The petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.268/2021 of Infopark
police station, which was registered alleging offences punishable under
Sections 406 and 420 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioner has moved this
Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The crime was registered on the basis of the complainant
given by the defacto complainant alleging offences under Sections 406
and 420 read with 34 of IPC. It is alleged that the 1 st accused is the
Chairman and Managing Director of IDSI Technologies Pvt. Ltd, in
which it is stated that the 2nd accused/petitioner is the Director and the
Technical Head, that the company was incorporated by pledging original
documents of the property of the defacto complainant, that he was also
an employee there. It is alleged that on 31.08.2019, his service was
terminated. However, salary arrears of Rs.25,00,000/- was not paid and
the original document of his property given towards bank guarantee was
also not returned. So, it is alleged that everything was done with the
intention of cheating and also committed criminal breach of trust.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was
only an employee as the Technical Head of the Company; he was never a
Director of the Company that he has already resigned from the company
on 30.04.2021 before the registration of the crime and now he is no more
at the realm of the affairs of the company. Now he is working in a
company in Bangalore. According to the learned counsel, it is a civil
dispute between the defacto complainant and the 1 st accused. The 1st
accused is presently staying in United States of America.
4. After hearing counsel on both sides and also the learned
Public Prosecutor, I feel that this is a fit case for granting anticipatory
bail to the petitioner. It has been specifically highlighted that the learned
Sessions Judge had refused to exercise the jurisdiction on technical
reasons, that an averment was not incorporated, that he is apprehending
arrest. There are supporting averments in the bail application. The
reason that he had left the company prior to the registration of the crime
alone is sufficient to guard against his arrest. Secondly, it appears, he is
only an employee and it is not the responsibility of the petitioner to pay
salary or to return the document which was handed over for the purpose
of obtaining the bank guarantee.
In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender
before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and will
make himself available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, he shall
be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand
rupees only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; he shall co-operate with the
investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper
with the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during the period on
bail.
Bail Application is allowed as above.
Sd/-
K.HARIPAL
JUDGE
ska
