IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 2895 of 2008()
1. THOUFEEK RIZWAN, AGED 24 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :23/06/2008
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J.
-------------------------------------------
B.A.No.2895 of 2008
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008
ORDER
Petition for anticipatory bail.
2. The petitioner is first accused in the crime. The
alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with
Section 34 IPC.
3. According to the prosecution, petitioner is in-charge
of granting loan on behalf of the financing company. The
petitioner allegedly used to verify the loan applications and the
details of the documents and on his recommendation, the
documents are genuine, loan up to Rs.25,000/- used to be
granted. Loans were issued to various persons on the
recommendation of the petitioner but, they defaulted payment.
It is also found later that the documents are not genuine,
contrary to what petitioner reported.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is only a Field Assistant who was appointed for a
meagre monthly salary of Rs.1,900/-. He is lower in rank than
even a peon. He was never in charge of granting loans as alleged
BA 2895/08 2
by the prosecution. He is not trained to scrutinise any document
or certify the genuineness. He has not been distributing any
loan amount. There are competent persons working in the
institution who are more responsible than the petitioner. The
petitioner has been falsely implicated only because that the
petitioner insisted to return Rs.50,000/- which he deposited as
security amount when he was appointed. He had resigned from
the job. It is only to delay payment of Rs.50,000/-, false
allegations are made against the petitioner.
5. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been
given any high responsibilities. Had it been done, there must be
some documents to establish the same. As a Field Assistant, his
only job was to collect amounts from various parties and pay to
the institution. He has never misappropriated any money which
was paid to him by the parties and there was no such allegations
against him so far. In spite of the fact that he was having access
to money as a collecting agent, he has not misappropriated any
amount during the discharge of his duties and there were no
such complaints also. But, the present allegation is raised only
in the circumstances stated above, it is submitted.
BA 2895/08 3
6. This petition is opposed. Learned public prosecutor
conceded that no documents are available to show that the
petitioner was given the duty to verify the documents and certify
them to be genuine. There are also no documents to establish
that the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of recommending
loan up to Rs.25,000/-. Though there was a specific direction by
this court on 10.6.2008 to the prosecution to verify whether
there are records to support the allegation that the petitioner
was entrusted with power to grant loan to the tune of
Rs.25,000/-, no such documents could be pointed out. Learned
public prosecutor, however, submitted that as per the case diary
statement, the Divisional officer and all the witnesses would say
that the petitioner was in charge of sanctioning the loan up to
Rs.25,000/-.
7. On hearing both sides, I find that a conditional order
has to be passed and the following order is passed:
(I) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the
Investigating officer within one week from the date of this order
and make himself available for investigation.
BA 2895/08 4
(II) Therefore, in the event of arrest of the petitioner, if
any, the petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate court
in accordance with law.
(III) On production of the accused before the learned
Magistrate, if any bail application is filed, the petitioner shall be
released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two
solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Magistrate Court concerned on the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer
on every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. until
further orders.
(ii) Petitioner shall not leave the limits of the police
station within which the crime is registered except with the prior
permission of the learned Magistrate.
The petition is allowed.
K.HEMA, JUDGE
csl