IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 6806 of 2008()
1. RAJEEV H.PILLAI, SON OF HARIHARAN PILLAI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :17/11/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------------
B.A.No.6806 of 2008
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th November, 2008
O R D E R
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 408, 418 and 420
of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner was
working as Sales Executive in the company, in which de facto
complainant is the Managing Director. Petitioner has to collect
money from various dealers and deposit in the company’s account.
Petitioner collected huge amount from various dealers, but did not
pay the same to the company and on that account, a loss of
Rs.5,50,000/- was caused to the company and he misappropriated
the said amount. He also committed theft of Rs.88,798/- from the
depot.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner
was working in the company for a salary of Rs.5,250/-. The salary
was too low and hence he was insisting for enhancement of salary.
But the company was not prepared to enhance the salary. He
wanted to resign from the company and joined in another firm for
higher salary. On knowing this, the management approached
petitioner and insisted him to continue in the same company and
promised to pay more salary, but petitioner was not willing to
BA.6806/08 2
accept this and hence a false complaint is filed against petitioner to
wreak vengeance against him. Payments from the dealers used to
be made through account payee cheque and demand drafts and
hence, petitioner cannot misappropriate any amount, it is
submitted. When petitioner joined the company, he had given three
cheques as security and the company also misused the same and
lodged complaint against petitioner under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act for the same amount.
4. This petition is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and
also learned counsel appearing for de facto complainant. Both were
heard. They have submitted that this is a clear case of cheating and
misappropriation. Several dealers are questioned by the police and
on questioning them, it is revealed that though petitioner is
expected to receive only demand drafts and account payee cheques,
he had collected amounts in cash from the dealers and without
depositing the same, he misappropriated an amount of
Rs.5,50,000/-. It is also submitted that petitioner had issued three
cheques to the company towards the amount which was
misappropriated by him. But, those cheques bounded on
presenting, it is submitted. It is also pointed out that though the
present case set up by petitioner at the time of argument is that the
cheques were were given as security, and those were forged and
BA.6806/08 3
misused, this contention is totally belied by the statement made in
the bail application. From the bail application it is clear that the
cheques were handed over only recently and those were given for
some other purpose and not as security at the time of getting the
job. It is also submitted that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory
bail.
5. On hearing both sides, considering the nature of allegations
made against petitioner and the nature of investigation that may be
required, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case to grant
anticipatory bail. There will be several facts which are in the
exclusive knowledge of the petitioner, which can be ascertained
only by questioning the accused by the police. The crime was
registered as early as on 30.9.2008 and petitioner could not be
arrested so far.
Petitioner is directed to surrender before the
investigating officer without delay and co-operate
with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or
not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner at any
time.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
vgs.