Sujithkumar K.V vs State – S.H.O. Mattannur Police … on 29 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 7300 of 2007(S)


1. SUJITHKUMAR K.V.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE - S.H.O. MATTANNUR POLICE STATION,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :29/11/2007

 O R D E R
                           R. BASANT, J.
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    B.A.No. 7300 of 2007
                 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
           Dated this the 29th day of November, 2007

                              O R D E R

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the

second accused in a crime registered for the offence punishable

under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioner is the Secretary of a

bank. The first accused is a loanee, who had availed a loan from

the bank by pledging gold ornaments. The gold ornaments

pledged by the first accused, after a long period of time, were

found to be not genuine. An amount of Rs.6.16 Lakhs had been

siphoned out of the funds of the bank by the first accused. It is

the case of the bank now that the petitioner, in collusion with the

first accused, had facilitated such siphoning out of the funds of

the bank on the strength of non-genuine/fake gold ornaments.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is absolutely innocent. Assuming that an error has

been committed by the petitioner in accepting the security, ready

B.A.No. 7300 of 2007
2

inference of culpability is unjustified. He further submits that the

entire liability has already been paid and discharged by the first

accused.

3. The learned Prosecutor refutes the allegations, but accepts

that the case diary shows that the entire liability has now been

discharged by the first accused. The learned Prosecutor submits that

the petitioner, who is in charge of accepting the security, does have the

benefit/advantage of scientific instruments to test the purity of the gold

ornaments pledged. It is unlikely that the petitioner would have

committed any bonafide error in the matter. However, considering the

fact that the entire liability has been discharged by the first accused, the

learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application.

4. For that very reason, I am satisfied that a lenient view can be

taken and the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail.

5. In the result:

(1) This application is allowed.

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438

Cr.P.C.

B.A.No. 7300 of 2007
3

(a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate

on 6.12.2007 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the

petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent

sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned

Magistrate.

(b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation

before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on

7.12.2007 and 8.12.2007 and thereafter as and when directed by the

Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

(c) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned

Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse

on 6.12.07 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the

petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law.

(d) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on

6.12.2007 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail

B.A.No. 7300 of 2007
4

on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- without any surety

undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 6.12.2007.

(R. BASANT)
Judge

tm