IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3443 of 2010()
1. R.S.MANOJ MUMAR,AGED 39 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :21/06/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A Nos 3443, 3444, 3447, 3462
AND 3465 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of June 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 455, 468,
471 and 120B r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, certain
dealers in chicken who were bringing chicken from various places
in Tamil Nadu to Kerala were expected to pay tax contemplated
under Value Added Tax Act. It was sufficient, if Demand Drafts
are produced at the relevant check post. Various Demand Drafts
were produced at the check post while petitioner (A3) and other
dealers brought chicken to Kerala. Later, it was found that
Demand Drafts produced before the check post were forged by
fifth accused who is a computer expert, using check leaves issued
by different banks to certain societies. This was done in
furtherance of common intention to commit the various offences.
3. The prosecution case is that in furtherance of common
intention of all the accused, certain persons started three paper
societies and they also opened accounts in various banks. After
obtaining check leaves from the bank, those were used for forging
the cheque leaves into Demand Drafts. Rupees fourteen crores
B.A Nos 3443, 3444, 3447, 3462
AND 3465 OF 2010 2
were lost by the Government because of the offence committed
by petitioner and others and various crimes were registered
against petitioner and other accused.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this court
had granted anticipatory bail to a co-accused who stands on
similar footing as that of the petitioner as per Annexure B order
dated 30/11/2009 in B.A No.6171/2009 and B.A No.6665/2009 on
the ground that accused paid tax. Hence, on the same ground,
petitioner may also be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It
is alsos argued that petitioner’s interrogation is not necessary.
Petitioner’s earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed
on the ground that petitioner’s interrogation is necessary.
5. This petition is strongly opposed by learned Public
Prosecutor. He pointed out that this is the second application for
anticipatory bail and there is no change of circumstance. This
court had found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail
as per Annexure A order. Petitioner has not made out any
ground to grant anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that when
various anticipatory bail applications came up for hearing, learned
DGP submitted before this court that in the case of persons who
had paid tax, there was no objection and in view of the stand
taken by the respondent at that time, anticipatory bail was
B.A Nos 3443, 3444, 3447, 3462
AND 3465 OF 2010 3
granted by virtue of Annexure B order. But, petitioner did not pay
on offer to pay and his application was dismissed. Huge amount
was lost by the Government because of the offencea committed
by the petitioner and others and this is not a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail, it is submitted.
6. On hearing both sides and on going through the orders
Annexure A and B, I find that Annexure B order by which
anticipatory bail was granted was passed as early as on
30/11/2009. Anticipatory bail was granted only because
petitioners in that case paid advance tax. But, petitioner’s earlier
application for anticipatory bail was disposed of subsequently as
per order dated 29/03/2010 in B.A No.1013/2010 as per
Annexure A. The petitioner could have advanced the same
ground in the earlier application but, he did not do so. He also did
not pay tax and sought for lleniency.
7. Petitioner had sufficient opportunity to raise the same
ground which is raised now while his earlier application was
considered. He did not do so. It is also to be noted that the court
found in Annexure A order that custodial interrogation of
petitioner will be required in this case and if anticipatory bail is
granted to petitioner, it will adversely affect investigation of the
case. This court also held in the said order: “I do not think that
B.A Nos 3443, 3444, 3447, 3462
AND 3465 OF 2010 4
the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section
438 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
8. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that there is
absolutely no ground to grant anticipatory bail. This case was
registered as early as on 13/10/2009. This court had already held
in Annexure A order that petitioner is required for interrogation for
proper investigation of this case. Petitioner is bound to surrender
before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation.
9. Hence, I make it clear that no further application for
anticipatory bail by petitioner in this case will be entertained by
this court,especially since I am satisfied that any delay in
investigation will affect the investigation adversely.
Petitions are dismissed.
K.HEMA
JUDGE
vdv