IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 7905 of 2008()
1. CHANDRAMATHY AMMA S.,D/O.SREEMATHY AMMA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.ANIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :06/01/2009
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
------------------------------
B.A. No.7905 OF 2008
------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420 and 34 of
I.P.C. A crime was registered against accused nos.1 and 2 and
thereafter on investigation, it is revealed that several persons
are involved in the crime. The allegations is that first accused
was running a financial institution, in which the second
accused is the General Manager. They along with other
accused including petitioner, who is accused no.3, made
fraudulent representations to various depositors to induce to
make deposits in ‘total for you’, which is run by first accused,
with a view to deceive them. The amount was not paid back
and thereby they deceived the defacto complainant and
various other persons. The crime is registered as early as on
27.08.2008.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. She
has no connection with first accused. But, first accused has
B.A.No.7905 of 2008
2
purchased a car in the name of petitioner and that the car was
being used by the institution. Petitioner cannot be under any
circumstances be made responsible for the act committed by
first accused and she has nothing to do with the various
allegations made.
4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that a search was conducted in the
premises of the institution run by first accused and various
documents were seized, which clearly reveal petitioner’s role
in the running of the institution. Based on these documents,
several witnesses were questioned from the institution. It is
fully revealed from their statement as well as the questioning
the first accused, that the petitioner has a definite role in the
running of the institution and committed various offences in
furtherance of common intention with other accused.
5. It is not a mere purchase of a car but according to
learned Public Prosecutor, the case diary reveals that it was
the petitioner, who persuaded first accused to start the
business by promising help and assistance by introducing
herself as a highly influential person. The petitioner was a
B.A.No.7905 of 2008
3
Senior Manager in SIDCO. She was also working in various
capacities in various organizations and using that influence,
petitioner promised help and aid to first accused to run the
institution. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that a
petition was filed before another bench of this court to quash
the proceedings initiated against petitioner. The order in the
said petition is Annexure A5.
6. This court observed in Annexure A5 order that
petitioner must co-operate with the Investigating Officer and
reveal the details which are known to her and help the
investigation. It is also submitted that petitioner was
absconding and she was not available for interrogation by the
Investigating Officer. Though this order was passed as early as
on 14th October, 2008, petitioner has not so far co-operated
with the investigation. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail
may not be granted, it is submitted.
On hearing both sides and on going through Annexure A5
order, I am satisfied that the facts relating to the involvement
of petitioner in the offence were considered by another bench
of this court in Annexure A5 order and it was observed as
B.A.No.7905 of 2008
4
follows :
“To me it appears that the petitioner must
co-operate with the investigating officer and reveal
the details which are known to her and help in the
proper conduct of the investigation. It is submitted
that the petitioner is absconding and she is not
available for interrogation by the investigating
officer. “
On the observations made, the court dismissed the
petition filed for quashing proceedings against petitioner. It
was observed that “the investigation must continue and
unearth all the relevant details including the specific acts of
complicity on the part of the petitioner, if any”.
The facts being so, I do not find any additional grounds or
reasons being pointed out to me to come to a different finding.
I am also satisfied that petitioner is to be interrogated by the
police to ascertain the several facts which are within her
exclusive knowledge, which could be revealed only by
interrogation of petitioner. Therefore, in the nature of the
allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am
satisfied that anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
B.A.No.7905 of 2008
5
The petitioner is directed to surrender before
the Investigating Officer within ten days from
today and co-operate with the investigation
and make herself available for interrogation.
Whether she surrenders or not, police is at
liberty to arrest petitioner and proceed in
accordance with law.
With this observation, this petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
pac