Kerala High Court
Sreeja.G.T vs State Of Kerala on 7 November, 2024
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
B.A.NO. 8208 OF 2024 1
2024:KER:82819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 8208 OF 2024
CRIME NO.848/2024 OF VELLARADA POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2024 IN CRMC
NO.2500 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED
02.09.2024 IN CRMC NO.2247 OF 2024 OF DISTRICT COURT &
SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SREEJA.G.T.
AGED 41 YEARS
D/O JAYAKUMARI, R G BHAVAN, ARAVILAKAM,
KUNNATHUKAL,KARAKONAM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695504
BY ADV SRI.RAJESH P.NAIR
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
VELLARADA POLICE STATION,
VELLARADA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695505
B.A.NO. 8208 OF 2024 2
2024:KER:82819
BY SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.NO. 8208 OF 2024 3
2024:KER:82819
ORDER
Dated this the 07th day of November, 2024
The application is filed under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short
'BNSS'), for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in
Crime No.848/2024 of the Vellarada Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram, which is registered against her for
allegedly committing the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2) and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that:
while the accused was working as a Secretary of the
Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Kerala,
('Council', in short) she cheated the said institution and
the farmers by misappropriating Rs.15,34,745/-. Thus,
the accused has committed the above offences.
2024:KER:82819
4. Heard; Sri.Rajesh P Nair, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is innocent of the
accusations levelled against her. The fact that the
alleged misappropriation took place in 2009, but
Annexure A1 First Information Report has been
registered only on 04.09.2024, by itself proves the falsity
in the crime. There is no plausible explanation for the
inordinate delay. The petitioner has been made an
accused only due to the previous animosity of the
President of the Council. The petitioner is a woman and
has no criminal antecedents. The petitioner is ready to
abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by
this Court and co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
Hence, the application may be allowed.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
application. The Investigating Officer has filed a bail
2024:KER:82819
objection report, inter alia, contending that in the
investigation it has been unveiled revealed that the
petitioner had misappropriated Rs.15,34,745/- while she
was working as a Secretary. It is during the audit of the
accounts of the Council that the said misappropriation
was unearthed. The petitioner's custodial interrogation
is necessary and recovery is to be effected for the
proper investigation of the crime. If the petitioner is
granted an order of pre-arrest bail, it may torpedo the
investigation. Hence, the application may be dismissed.
7. The prosecution allegation is that, while
the petitioner was working as a Secretary, during the
period 2009, she had misappropriated Rs.15,34,745/-.
Indisputably, the FIR has been registered only on
04.09.2024. The only reason for the delay in filing the
FIR is that it is only when the audit was conducted that
the misappropriation was unveiled. It is discernible that
the Council has been conducting audit every month. It
is after 14 long years that the said misappropriation has
2024:KER:82819
been unveiled. Prima facie, I find that the explanation
offered by the defacto complainant to be untenable.
However, this is a matter to be investigated and
ultimately decided after trial. Furthermore, the
petitioner is a woman.
8. After bestowing my anxious consideration
to the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar,
and the materials placed on record, particularly on
considering the inordinate delay in registering the crime,
the petitioner is a woman and petitioner is willing to co-
operate with the investigation, I am satisfied and
convinced that the petitioner has made out valid grounds
to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 of the BNSS. Hence, I am inclined to
allow the application, but subject to stringent conditions.
In the result, the application is allowed subject to
the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before
the Investigating Officer within two weeks from
today.
2024:KER:82819
(ii) In the event of the arrest of the
petitioner, the Investigating Officer shall release
the petitioner on bail on her executing a bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each
with two solvent sureties for the like amount
each;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and
when directed by the Investigating Officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
procure to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade them from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police
Officer or tamper with the evidence in any
manner, whatsoever;
(v) The petitioner shall surrender her
passport before the jurisdictional court
concerned within a period of one week from the
date of her release on bail. If she has no
passport, she shall file an affidavit to the effect
before the said court within the said period;
2024:KER:82819
(vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in
any other offence while on bail;
(vii) In case of violation of any of the
conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional
court shall be empowered to consider the
application for cancellation of bail, if any filed,
and pass orders on the same, in accordance with
law.
(viii) Applications for deletion/modification of
the bail conditions shall also be filed before the
jurisdictional court.
(ix) Needless to mention, it would be well
within the powers of the Investigating Officer to
investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect
recoveries on the information, if any, given by
the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail
as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
And another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
(x) The observations made in this order are
only for the purpose of considering the
2024:KER:82819
application and the same shall not be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case, which
is to be decided by the competent Courts.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
JUDGE
NAB
