Abu Kk vs Ajithkumar V
2023 Latest Caselaw 5420 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
         TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1945
                          CRL.MC NO. 5066 OF 2022
[AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.7.2022 IN CRL.M.C. No.1621/2022 & CRL.MC
NO.1623/2022 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, PALAKKAD IN
         CRIME NO.218/2022 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD]
PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

              ABU K.K.
              AGED 55 YEARS
              S/O. HASSANKUTTY, KUMBALAKUZHIYAN HOUSE, KARKKIDAMKUNNU
              POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679335
              BY ADVS.
              K.M.FIROZ
              M.SHAJNA
              P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN CRL.MC BEFORE THE SESSIONS COURT (ACCUSED)
AND STATE AND INVESTIGATION OFFICER:

     1        AJITHKUMAR V
              AGED 54 YEARS
              S/O. THANKAMMA, VELLUTHANATH HOUSE, ALANALLUR POST,
              MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678601
     2        BINEESH O.V
              AGED 44 YEARS
              S/O. VIJAYAN, OTTUPPARA HOUSE, MURINKANNI, KUTTANISSERI
              POST, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679514,
              PRESENTLY SECRETARY, ALANALLUR CO-OPERATIVE URBAN CREDIT
              SOCIETY, ALANALLUR, ALANALLUR POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678601
     3        SHAJI T
              AGED 41 YEARS
              S/O. KUMARAN TC, THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE, MANNUR POST,
              PATTHIRIPALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679302
     4        STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
              ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
     5        SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATTUKAL POLICE STATION
              NATTUKAL POST, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -
 CRL.MC No.5066/2022                    2
             678554
             R1 & R2 BY ADVS.
             VINOD MADHAVAN
             M.V.BOSE(K/8/1967)
             P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR(K/745/2014)
             DIVYA T.P.(K/218/2020)

             R4 & R5 BY SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


      THIS   CRIMINAL   MISC.   CASE   HAVING   BEEN   FINALLY   HEARD   ON
11.04.2023, THE COURT ON 28.04.2023 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.MC No.5066/2022                   3

                                ORDER

This Crl.MC is filed by the defacto complainant in Crime

No.218/2022 of Nattukal Police Station. The challenge in this Crl.M.C. is

against Annexures A17 and A18 orders passed by the Court of Sessions,

Palakkad in Crl.M.C. Nos.1621/2022 and 1623/2022. As per the orders

impugned in this case, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail

to the accused in the aforesaid crime, who are respondents 1 to 3 in this

Crl.M.C.

2. The facts which led to the filing of this Crl.M.C. are as follows:

The crime was registered on the allegations regarding the

misappropriation of the funds of Alanallur Co-operative Urban Credit

Society. The aforesaid Credit Society was under the Management

Committee/Board of Directors consisting of eleven members. The 1 st

accused/1st respondent was the President, the 2nd accused/2nd respondent

was the Secretary and the 3 rd accused/3rd respondent was the Contractor

who had carried out certain works for the society. The basic allegation on

the basis of which the aforesaid crime registered was that the accused

persons have conspired together with the intention to cause unlawful loss

to the Society and to make unlawful personal gains to them, prepared a

false estimate relating to the interior works in the newly started head office

of the Society and also in Edathanattukara branch office of the Society,

and invited quotations without following proper procedure. In response to

the tender notification, the 3rd accused submitted a quotation showing a

figure marginally lesser than (closer to) the amount shown in the estimate

and thereby caused a misappropriation of an amount of Rs.85 lakhs of the

society. The other members of the Board of Directors of the Society

submitted a complaint before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Palakkad as evidenced by Annexure-A1 highlighting certain discrepancies

in the manner in which the works were awarded to the 3 rd accused and also

complaining about the inferior quality of the works done. It was also

alleged in the aforesaid complaint that, the decision to invite quotation and

to award the work to the 3rd accused were taken without informing the

Management committee and by creating false minutes of the meeting of

the Management committee to create an impression that the works were

awarded with the approval of the Committee. On the basis of the aforesaid

complaint, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies conducted an

inquiry. As part of such inquiry, a notice was issued to Sri.Haridasan M., a

retired Assistant Engineer, Local Self Government Department who

allegedly prepared the estimates based on which the quotations for interior

works for the head office as well as Edathanattukkara branch of the

Society were invited. The said Haridasan stated before the Joint Registrar

that, he never visited the head office or the branch office of the said

Society for the purpose of preparing any estimate and he was never

consulted by accused Nos.1 and 2 for the said purpose. He asserted that,

the copies of the estimate which are produced as Annexures A2 and A3 in

this Crl.M.C. were not prepared by him and the sign and seal contained on

the said documents are forged.

3. Besides the same, the said Haridasan, upon coming to know the

forgery committed by the accused, submitted a complaint before the

District Police Chief, Palakkad as evidenced by Annexure-A9. Acting

upon the said complaint, Nattukal Police Station registered Crime

No.59/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 420,465,468,471

of the Indian Penal Code, but the 3 rd accused in this crime alone made as

an accused.

4. Thereupon, the petitioner herein submitted a private complaint

as per Crl.M.P No.1144/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court, Mannarkkad highlighting in detail, the acts committed by the

respondents 1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 with respect to the aforesaid

transactions. The learned Magistrate referred the said private complaint for

investigation to the Nattukkal Police Station under Section 156(3) of

Cr.PC. Consequently, Crime No.218/2022 was registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 379,406,420,465,468,471,120-B,408 r/w.

Section 34 of the IPC. As the accused apprehended arrest, the applications

for anticipatory bail were submitted before the Sessions Court, Palakkad.

Crl.M.C.No.1621/2022 was submitted by accused Nos.1 and 2 and

Crl.M.C.No.1623/2022 was filed by the 3rd accused. The petitioner/defacto

complainant appeared in both the aforesaid anticipatory bail applications

and submitted Annexures-A15 and A16 objections. As per Annexures A17

and A18 orders, the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the

accused persons and the said orders are impugned in this Crl.M.C.

5. Heard Sri.K.M.Firoz, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, Sri.Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel appearing for

respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Vipin Narayan, the learned Public Prosecutor

for the State.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while

granting anticipatory bail, the learned Judge committed a grave error, as

the relevant factors which are to be taken note of for invoking the

jurisdiction vested upon the court under section 438 of Cr.P.C were not

taken into consideration and instead, the anticipatory bail was granted

mainly on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the accused was

not necessary, as the relevant documents of the case are now in the

custody of the Administrator, who is in-charge of the affairs of the Society.

It was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that,

the fact that the documents are in the custody of the Administrator alone

cannot be a valuable criteria for granting anticipatory bail. According to

him, the other necessary criteria such as, the seriousness of the offence,

severity of punishment, nature of the offence, pre-planned nature of the

acts, which is an economic offence, the specific role played by the accused

persons as is evident from the records etc., were not taken into

consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon

large number of decisions including Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor

Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Another

[(2021)8 SCC 753], Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

[(2016)15 SCC 422], Rakesh Baban Borhade v. State of Maharashtra and

Another [(2015)2 SCC 313], Chitambaram P. v. Directorate of

Enforcement [(2019)9 SCC 24], State of Gujarat v. Narendra K. Amin

[(2008)13 SCC 594], State of A.P. v. B.K.Kundu [(1997)8 SCC 104] and

Rahul R.U. v. State of Kerala [2021(4) KHC 44].

7. The learned Public Prosecutor would support the contentions

raised by the petitioner by pointing out that since the matter is under

investigation and considering the nature of allegations, a detailed

investigation is required, for which, the custodial interrogation of the

petitioners is necessary.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1

and 2 would seriously oppose the prayer sought by the petitioner. It is

pointed out that, all the decisions based on which allegations are raised

against them, were taken by the said respondents collectively with the

other Managing Committee members of the Society, during the course of

meeting of the committee and with their approval. No personal gains were

obtained by them, and they deny all the allegations contrary to the same.

Respondents 1 and 2 have also filed a detailed objection in response to the

averments made in the Crl.M.C. By placing reliance upon the same, the

learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 seeks for dismissal of the

Crl.M.C.

9. I have gone through the records including the case diary of the

said case. The petitioner also produced Annexure-A19 report of the Unit

Inspector, Attapadi/Inquiry Officer, who conducted an inquiry under

section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act in respect of the

allegations raised against the accused persons.

10. The crucial allegations raised against the accused pertain to the

malpractices and misappropriation of the amounts while executing the

interior decoration works in the newly constructed building for the head

office of the Society and also in it's branch office at Edathanattukkara. In

respect of both the works, the specific allegations against the accused are

that, the quotations were invited on the basis of estimate falsely created by

forging the signature of one Haridasan, a retired Assistant Engineer,

LSGD. The falsity of the aforesaid document is evident from the fact that,

the said Haridasan himself came forward and submitted a complaint

against all the three accused persons as per Annexure A9 complaint

submitted before the District Police Chief. In paragraph 4 of Annexure A9

it is specifically stated by the said Haridasan that, his false signature and

the seals were created by the accused Nos.1 to 3. However, surprisingly, in

Annexure A10 FIR registered, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not shown as

accused persons. The private complaint was submitted by the petitioner in

such circumstances. In the said private complaint also, there are specific

allegations against all the three accused persons. One of the crucial aspects

pointed out by the petitioner in this case is the proximity of the amounts

shown in the estimate and amounts shown in the quotations submitted by

the 3rd accused. The petitioner/defacto complainant,clearly mentioned in

the objections submitted before the learned Sessions Judge that, in

response to the notification for the work of the head office, the 3 rd accused

submitted a quotation of Rs.67,81,743/- for 55 items and the price

difference for these items between the estimate and the quotation were

within the marginal range of Rs.50/- to 500/-. Similarly, with respect to

the branch office at Edathanattukara, the difference between the estimate

and the quotation for different items of work was ranging from Rs.50/- to

300/-. The quotation submitted for the work of branch office was for an

amount of Rs.34,65,266/-. I have carefully gone through the contents of

Annexures A2 to A4 which are the estimates and the quotations submitted

by the 3rd respondent respectively. From the scrutiny of the same, I find

some force in the aforesaid contentions as the difference is very marginal.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this is not a mere

coincidence but instead, a clear indication that the quotation was prepared

by the 3rd accused by fully knowing the contents of estimate.

11. The contentions raised by the petitioner, to a great extent,

fortified by the findings entered into by the inquiry officer who conducted

the inquiry under section 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the

report of which is produced as Annexure-A19. The said Inquiry Report

clearly reveals a detailed inquiry after recording the statements of all the

parties to the transactions. Even though the accused Nos.1 and 2 have

asserted that all the decisions relating to the awarding of the works

including the decision to invite tenders were taken on the basis of approval

of the committee, most of the committee members have clearly stated that,

they were not aware of such transactions as they were not informed by

accused Nos.1 and 2 about the same. According to the committee

members, for the purpose of preparation of minutes, they have put

signature on blank papers and later those were filled up by the accused

persons. In Annexure A19 report, it was also noted that, as regards tender

notification for the head office, in addition to the quotation submitted by

the 3rd accused, they also received two other quotations by one 'Archana

Furniture & Interior' and one 'Green Interiors Pvt.Ltd'. The respective

amounts quoted by the said establishments were Rs.74,34,933.61/- and

71,78,009.67/-, whereas, the amount quoted by the 3 rd accused was

Rs.67,81,743.89/-. The estimate allegedly prepared by the said Haridasan

was Rs.68,28,998.11/-. It is further revealed from the inquiry that the

persons who have allegedly submitted the other two tenders were

summoned in which Sri. Vimal Das, the owner of M/s Archana Furniture

& Interior, appeared before the Inquiry Officer and gave a statement to the

effect that he never submitted any quotation, as is seen from the records

maintained by the accused Nos. 1 and 2.

12. With respect to quotation for the works of branch office also, it

is seen that two other quotations were received, one by M/s Archana

Furniture & Interior , and another by M/s Galaxy Interiors. The amounts

quoted by them were Rs.39,89,133.96/- and 36,84,798.62/- respectively,

whereas the amount quoted by the 3rd accused was Rs.34,65,266.58/-. The

amount shown in the estimate was Rs.34,82,514.76/-. With respect to this

works also, Sri. Vimal Das, the owner of Archana Furnitures & Interior

stated that, he had not given any quotation for the said works. Similarly,

Sri. Suresh P., the owner of Galaxy Interiors has also stated that, he did not

submit any quotation as shown in the records. Thus, it is evident that,

besides the preparation of false estimate, false quotations were also seen

submitted.

13. In the statement of the 3rd accused recorded by the Inquiry

Officer, it is seen that he admitted that he submitted quotations in the

name of the other parties. He also stated that, as a gift in response to the

work of the head office, he gave an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to the 1 st

accused and Rs.1,50,000/- to the 2nd accused. Similarly, in respect to the

works relating to the branch, an amount of Rs.3 lakhs has been given to

the 1st accused and Rs.1,50,000/- was given to the 2 nd accused. Thus, it is

evident from the aforesaid document that, there are certain materials which

are crucial in nature and would clearly reveal the role of all the accused

persons in the commission of the said crime. These are all matters to be

investigated in detail.

14. In addition to the aforesaid allegations, in Annexure-A11

private complaint submitted by the petitioner/defacto complainant, they

also have a case that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have opened a joint account

in their name for the purpose of collecting amounts from the persons who

availed loan from the Society. The aforesaid aspect is also seen inquired

into by the inquiry officer and found to be correct. The statement of

several account holders were seen recorded and they have stated that the

accused persons used to collect certain amounts while granting credit

facilities to them under the guise of processing fee. Thus, when taking into

account all these aspects, it can be clearly seen that, there are specific

materials available on record indicating the role played by all the accused

persons in the commission of the crime. In Siddharam Satlingappa

Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [2010(4)KLT 930(SC)], it was held that

nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused

must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court

must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It

was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations

have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the

applicant by arresting him or her. In Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar

[(2012)4 SCC 379], it was held that the Parameters for grant of

anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and

further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons

therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional

circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant

has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. In

Chitambaram's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court taken note of the

observations in the above referred judgments and the matters to be

considered while considering the question of anticipatory bail in economic

offences were clearly stated, the relevant paragraphs of which are

extracted hereunder.

"76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] , the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to

be considered while dealing with anticipatory bail. It was held that the nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre [Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 514] and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 SCC 379 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 468] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 386, para 19)

19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief, the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran [D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 345] , State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain [State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 176] and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC 305 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] .)

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510] , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

79. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the "scheduled offence" and "offence of money-laundering" are independent of each other and PMLA being a special enactment applicable to the offence of money-laundering is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Solicitor General submitted that money-laundering being an economic offence committed with much planning and deliberate design poses a serious threat to the nation's economy and financial integrity and in order to unearth the laundering and trail of money, custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary.

80. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the

community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 371, para 5)

5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even- handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.

81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35)

34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

From the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid decisions, it is evident that anticipatory bail is to be granted only

in exceptional circumstances and when the offence involved is an

economic offence, the standards to be applied are more stringent. In

Supreme Bhiwandi Wada's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

observed as follows:

"22. The High Court, in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 in the first two appeals and following that order in disposing of the challenge to the order of the Sessions Judge in the companion appeals, has evidently lost sight of the nature and gravity of the alleged offence. This Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020(1) KHC 663: (2020) 5 SCC 1: 2020(1) KLD 235: 2020(1) KLT 545: ILR 2020(1) Ker. 517 : AIR 2020 SC 831: 2020 CriLJ 1590) has enunciated the considerations that must govern the grant of anticipatory bail in the following terms:

92.3. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc.

92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to the discretion of the court."

An appellate court or a Superior court can set aside the order granting bail if the court granting bail did not consider relevant factors. In Myakala Dharmarajam v. The State of Telangana (2020 KHC 6010 : 2020(2) SCC 743: AIR 2020 SC 317 : 2020 CriLJ 1457) this Court has held :

"9. It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the Accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the Accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail.

23 There are serious allegations against the respondent - accused of a fraudulent misappropriation of amounts intended to be paid by the

company to the famers affected by the work of road widening being undertaken by the complainant. The FIR sets out details of the alleged acts of fraud and misappropriation of funds, as explained earlier. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations no case for anticipatory bail was made out. The High Court has erred both in law and in its evaluation of the facts."

In Neeru Yadav's case (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

that while granting bail, if the court failed to take into consideration the

relevant material factors, it would make the order absolutely perverse and

totally indefensible.

15. After considering the factual situation in this case, in the light

of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions

mentioned above, I find some force in the contentions put forward by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. From the reading of Annexures A17 and

A18 orders which are impugned in this Crl.MC, it is evident that, the

learned Sessions Judge has taken only one fact into consideration ie. the

material documents are in the custody of the Administrator and not in the

custody of the petitioner and therefore, the custodial interrogation of the

petitioners is not necessary. However, I am of the view that, in the light of

the materials produced before this Court indicating the specific role of the

petitioner, the aforesaid reason is neither sustainable nor is sufficient to

grant anticipatory bail to the accused in this case. It is evident that, several

documents are seen falsely created and produced as part of the records.

The source of the aforesaid records, manner in which the same were

created are matters to be investigated by the Police. To conduct a proper

investigation in the matter, the custodial interrogation of the accused may

be necessary in this case. In this regard, the observations made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in B.K.Kundu's case (supra) which reads as

follows:

"12. We are strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising the discretion under Section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. It is disquieting that implications of arming the respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well- orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if the respondents are equipped with such an order before they are interrogated by the police it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised himself of the nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on "the career of millions of students", learned Single Judge should not have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very thoughtfully conferred on the Sessions Judges and the High Courts through Section 438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-arrest bail order."

16. This is a case in which allegations are relating to the

misappropriation of public funds and as per Annexure A19 report, several

malpractices are seen committed by the accused persons. The amount

involved is very huge. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

aforesaid decisions, economic offence constitutes a class apart and need to

be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The facts of this

case apparently indicates a matter which requires to be dealt with very

strictly as large scale manipulations are evident from the materials

produced. Therefore, I am of the view that, the discretion exercised by the

learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the accused was not on

proper consideration and therefore liable to be interfered with.

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexures A17 and A18 orders

passed by the Sessions Judge, Palakkad in Crl.M.C Nos.1621/2022 and

1623/2022 are hereby set aside. Respondents 1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3

are directed to surrender before the Investigation Officer within a period of

seven days from today.

This Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

pkk

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5066/2022

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08/07/2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE FORGED ESTIMATE PREPARED BY ACCUSED AS REGARDS WORK OF HEAD OFFICE, ALANALLUR ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FORGED ESTIMATE PREPARED BY ACCUSED AS REGARDS WORK OF EDATHANATTUKARA BRANCH ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3/ 3RD ACCUSED AGAINST ANNEXURE A2.

ANNEXURE5 TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENT NO. 3/ 3RD ACCUSED AGAINST ANNEXURE A3 ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 02/07/2021 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHERS TO JOINT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PALAKKAD ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) MANNARKKAD TO JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RENDERED BY MR. HARIDASAN (RETIRED ENGINEER) TO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), MANNARKKAD ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY MR. HARIDASAN (RETIRED ENGINEER) BEFORE THE 04/01/2022 ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT ALONG WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT IN CRIME NO. 59 OF 2022 OF NATTUKKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT HAVING CRL.M.P. NO. 1144 OF 2022 ON THE FILE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MANNARKKAD ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 218 OF 2022 OF NATTUKAL POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF CRL MC NO. 1621 OF 2022 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT (ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II), PALAKKAD.

ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF CRL.M.C NO. 1623 OF 2022 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT (ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II), PALAKKAD ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY PETITIONER IN CRL.M.C.

NO. 1621 OF 2022 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT (ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II), PALAKKAD ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY PETITIONER IN CRL.M.C.

NO. 1623 OF 2022 ON THE FILES OF SESSIONS COURT (ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II), PALAKKAD ANNEXURE A17 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/07/2022 IN CRL MC NO. 1621 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, PALAKKAD ANNEXURE A18 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/07/2022 IN CRL MC NO. 1623 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-II, PALAKKAD ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT UNDER SECTION 66 OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT SUBMITTED BY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) MANNARKKAD TO JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)