Rajani.V.R vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 32 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 32 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 January, 2023

Kerala High Court

Rajani.V.R vs State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2023

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
   FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 16TH POUSHA, 1944
                    BAIL APPL. NO. 10 OF 2023
 Crime No.693/2021 of Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta
                            District
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

    1     RAJANI.V.R
          AGED 43 YEARS
          W/O.RAJESH KUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS,
          BABUMANGALATH, KALANJOOR.P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA -
          689 694

    2     REJITHA.V
          AGED 51 YEARS
          W/O.JAYAKUMAR, AGED 51 YEARS,
          KALLASSERIL THEKKETHIL, KALANJOOR.P.O.,
          PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 694

          BY ADV SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY

RESPONDENT/STATE:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:

          PP -SMT. NIMA JACOB


    THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No.10 of 2023               :2:




                       VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
         -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                       B.A. No.10 of 2023
         -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
              Dated this the 6th day of January, 2023

                                 ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 3 in Crime

No.693/2021 of Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta District,

alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406,

420, 468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioners along

with other accused had siphoned off an amount of Rs.7,47,22,663/-

from Gayathri Bankers and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in the above said crime. It

is the case of the petitioners that the 1st petitioner was working as

a Clerk since 2005 and was later shifted to Chankoor Chits, a sister

concern of Gayathri Bankers. The 2 nd petitioner was working in

Gayathri Travels from 2008 and was shifted to Gayathri Bankers as

a Clerk from 2017 onwards. The said establishments were under

the proprietorship of one Ravikumar and the said Ravikumar was

managing the entire affairs of all the establishments and he expired

on February 2021 and the business of the establishments were

taken over by his wife, Sujatha Ravikumar. The petitioners submit

that they had nothing do with the day to day affairs of the aforesaid

bank and the entire transactions were handled by Ravikumar. As

soon as the said Sujatha Ravikumar took charge of the business,

the petitioners were asked to submit their resignation but they did

not agreed to the same and they were disengaged from service

without paying last few months' salary. During these long period of

service, there were no allegation or misappropriation against them.

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that

the petitioners have been called to Police Station on several times

and they have appeared pursuant to the directions issued by the

investigating officer. Petitioners rely on the decisions of the Apex

Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State(NCT of Delhi)

and another( AIR 2020 SC 831), Arnesh Kumar v. State of

Bihar and Another [2014 (8) SCC 273] and Satender Kumar

Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [2022

(4) KHC 570(SC)] to substantiate their contention that custodial

interrogation is not required on the facts and circumstances of the

case.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted

that the allegation against the petitioners is that they have

siphoned off more than Rs.7 Crores from the aforesaid

establishment and that their interrogation is required for the

purpose of investigation.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and considering the nature of the allegations, I am of the opinion

that custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be required

for the purpose of investigation and only a limited custody be

granted for the same. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the

petitioners subject to stringent conditions. In the result, this

application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall

surrender before the investigating officer on 12.01.2023, at 11

a.m, and subject themselves for interrogation on that day and on

any other day/days as directed by the investigating officer. The

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

arrest in Crime No.693/2021 of Koodal Police Station,

Pathanamthitta District, they shall be produced before the

jurisdictional Court on the very same day and shall be released on

bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of

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

two solvent sureties each for the like-sum to the

satisfaction of the jurisdictional court ;

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the

investigating officer in Crime No.693/2021 of Koodal

Police Station, Pathanamthitta District, on every

Saturday, at 11 am, until the filing of the final report;

(iii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating

officer in Crime No.693/2021 of Koodal Police

Station, Pathanamthitta District, as and when

summoned to do so;

(iv) The petitioners shall not attempt to contact the

victim or the defacto complainant or interfere with

the investigation or to influence or intimidate any

witness in Crime No.693/2021 of Koodal Police

Station, Pathanamthitta District;