Vinod.T vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 12009 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
     THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944
                     BAIL APPL. NO. 9137 OF 2022


PETITIONER/SUSPECTED ACCUSED:

           VINOD.T.,
           AGED 49 YEARS
           KHANDENKAVIL, AYYAPPANKAVU ROAD, MANAKKODY,
           THRISSUR., PIN - 680012
           BY ADVS.
           G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).
           PRAVEEN CHANDRAN M.


RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
           PIN - 682031
     2     SANKARANARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI
           CHAZHOOR, ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680641
           BY SMT. SEETHA S. (PP)



     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appln. No. 9137 of 2022    2

                        VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
            ===========================
                  Bail Appln. No. 9137 of 2022
           ============================
           Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2022

                               ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is a suspected accused in Crime No.

527/2022 of Mathilakam Police Station, Thrissur District alleging

commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, the accused Nos. 1 to

6 had obtained a bank loan of Rs.1,80,00,000/- during the year

2018 from Pappinivattom Service Co-operative Bank by offering

the deed of the defacto complaint as a security without his

consent or knowledge and thereby committed cheating.

4. The petitioner submitted that he has been falsely

implicated in the above said crime. It is submitted that as a part

of construction, one Salam, who was later implicated as 6 th

accused had illegally obtained the loan amount on behalf of the

defacto complainant with his full knowledge and consent. It is

only after getting his consent that such a huge amount was

disbursed by the bank to the 6th accused and that too with the

help and support rendered by the bank officials. The 6 th accused

had in fact transferred some amount into the account of the

petitioner which is only an amount with regard to the preliminary

expenses and cost for constructing the house as instructed by

the defacto complainant. Apart from the said fact, the petitioner

does not have any other involvement in the instant case. The

petitioner was earlier called by the police for taking his statement

and was fully convinced about his innocence. However after the

arrest of the 6th accused, the petitioner is again called by the

police for taking further statement. In the said circumstance the

petitioner suspects that he would be implicated as an accused in

the aforesaid crime and there would be every chance to arrest

him also. The attempt now made by the police is to drop the case

as far as accused 1 to 4 are concerned and the petitioner be

made a scape-goat in the aforesaid crime. It is further submitted

that the defacto complainant had endorsed his signature in the

loan application submitted by the 1st and 2nd accused as a

witness. Therefore after a lapse of 4 years, he cannot turn around

and say that the loan application was submitted by offering his

property as security was without his consent or knowledge. The

dispute raised by the defacto complainant is purely civil in

nature. Since the allegation is purely civil in nature, the complaint

was preferred by the 2nd respondent only to harass the

petitioner. Going by the nature of the allegations, custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is not at all warranted.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions

submitted that by pledging the property of the defacto

complainant a total loan of Rs. 1,80,000,00/- was availed. The 2 nd

accused is the applicant for said loan. Out of the 1,80,000,00/-

availed from the bank, Rs.1 crore was retained by the 2 nd accused

and Rs.80 lakhs was transferred to the petitioner herein on an

undertaking that residential building for the petitioner would be

constructed. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that

eventhough the construction of the building has commenced, it

was not completed nor the amount was returned back to the

defacto complainant.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

nature of allegation, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the

petitioner granting limited custody for the purpose of the

investigation.

In the result, this application is allowed. The Petitioner shall

surrender before the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 527/2022

of Mathilakam Police Station on 28.12.2022 at 11 AM and shall

make himself available for interrogation on that day or any other

day/days as directed by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner

shall co-operate with the investigation. In the event of arrest of

the petitioner in Crime No. 527/2022 of Mathilakam Police Station,

the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional Court on

the very same day and shall be released on bail subject to the

following stringent conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent

sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the

Jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating

officer in Crime No. 527/2022 of Mathilakam Police

Station, on every Saturday at 11.00 a.m. until filing of

the final report.

(iii) Petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer as and

when required for the investigation.

(iv) The petitioner shall not attempt to influence the defacto

complainant or interfere with the investigation or to

influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.

527/2022 of Mathilakam Police Station;

(v) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while

on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the

investigating officer in Crime No. 527/2022 of Mathilakam Police

Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for

cancellation of bail.

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).

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE sbk/-