IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5688 of 2009()
1. PRAVEENKUMAR, DEPUTY MANAGER,
... Petitioner
2. KANNAN R, MANAKKATU HOUSE,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :03/11/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------------------------
B.A.No.5688 of 2009
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009
ORDER
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section
438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are
accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.466 of 2009 of Vazhakulam
Police Station, Ernakulam District.
2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under
Section 511 of 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. The petitioners are the officers of Kotak Mahindra
Bank Ltd. It is stated that the first petitioner is working as
Deputy Manager (Collection) of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and
the second petitioner is working as Direct Recovery Agent of the
said Bank. The prosecution case is that on 21.8.2009, the lorry
belonging to the defacto complainant was attempted to be stolen
with the help of accused Nos.4 to 8 who were hired for that
purpose by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. It is also stated that the
intention to repossess was not made known to the police.
BA No.5688/2009 2
4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 8th
October, 2009, the following order was passed:
“The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
further time to get instructions from the
petitioners as to whether they are willing to file a
statement on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
that Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and their officers
would strictly follow the directions of the
Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash
Kaur (2007(2) SCC 711).
Post after a week.
It is submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be
arrested till then.”
5. An affidavit dated 28th October, 2009 was filed by the
first petitioner. Though the acts allegedly committed by the
petitioners were attempted to be justified in the affidavit, it is
stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit thus:
“It is further submitted that Kotak Mahindra
Bank Ltd., Kochi has no intention to repossess the
vehicle which has due and the owners are failed
to repay the loan, by any unlawful means. It is
also clarified and submitted most humbly that any
repossession of vehicle for which the Bank has
advanced loan and the owner failed to clear the
due will be only in accordance with law.”
BA No.5688/2009 3
6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence and also taking into account the
affidavit filed by the first petitioner, I am of the view that
anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners.
There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of
the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall
release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/-
each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the
satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following
conditions:
a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer
for interrogation as and when required;
b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution
witnesses or tamper with the evidence;
c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in
any prejudicial activity while on bail;
d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above,
the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.
The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl
BA No.5688/2009 4
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
———————————————
B.A.No.5688 of 2009
———————————————
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks further time
to get instructions from the petitioners as to whether they are
willing to file a statement on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.
that Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and their officers would strictly
follow the directions of the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd.
vs. Prakash Kaur (2007(2) SCC 711).
Post after a week.
It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the
petitioners will not be arrested till then.
K.T.SANKARAN,
JUDGE
csl