Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2088 OF 2024 CRIME NO.299/2024 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3:
1 SHANAVAS T.M AGED 40 YEARS S/O, T.P MUHAMMED KUNJU, THAUFEEQ MANSIL, PANAVALLY, THRICHATTUKULAM, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688526 2 SHAMNA SHANAVAS AGED 35 YEARS W/O SHANAVAS, THAUFEEQ MANSIL, PANAVALLY, THRICHATTUKULAM, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688526 3 MUHAMMAD SHAMEER AGED 43 YEARS S/O, T.P MUHAMMED KUNJU, THAUFEEQ MANSIL, PANAVALLY, THRICHATTUKULAM, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688526 BY ADVS.
THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH DHANYA SUNNY ANN MILKA GEORGE JAYARAMAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 MAMMU MANAYIL SYED MUHAMMED MANAYCHAL HOUSE, CHANDIROOR P.O, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA ( IS IMPELADED AS ADDITIONAL SECOND RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 27.3.2024 IN CRL.M.A NO.1 OF 2024 ) BY ADV No Advocate
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:2:- OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2323/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:3:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946 BAIL APPL. NO. 2323 OF 2024 CRIME NO.299/2024 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED MAJJU, AGED 53 YEARS S/O K P ISMAIL,KARIYADATH HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682315 BY ADVS.
S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH ANILKUMAR C.R.
K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN NOURIN S. FATHIMA RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALAMASERRY POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO 299/2024 OF KALAMASERRY POLICE STATION ), PIN – 682022 SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2024, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..2088/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:4:- COMMON ORDER Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024 The applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for orders of pre- arrest bail. As these bail applications arise out of the same crime, they are consolidated and jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioners in B.A No.2088/2024 are the accused 1 to 3 and the petitioner in 2323/2024 is the 4th accused in Crime No.299/2024 of the Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (five in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 468, 471, 120-B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The crux of the prosecution allegation in the
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:5:- crime is that: on 29.12.2021, the accused 1 to 5, in furtherance of their common intention, to make unlawful gain, forged the resignation letters of the de facto complainant and his grandson as the Directors of Nakshatra Gold Private Limited and submitted the same to the Registrar of the Companies. Subsequently, the accused 1 and 2 started Nakshatra 916 Gold and Diamond LLP under the Limited Liability Partnership Act. In order to file the tax returns, the accused 2 and 3 took the help of accused 4 and 5, Chartered Accountants, and used the digital signatures of the de facto complainant to cancel the GST registration of Nakshtra Gold Private Limited. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.
4. Heard; Sri.Thomas J.Anakkallunkal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in B.A. No.2088/ 2024, Sri.S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:6:- the petitioner in B.A. No.2323/2024 and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik and Smt. Seetha S.,the learned Senior Public Prosecutors.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The subject matter in dispute is already pending consideration before the competent Civil Court. The de facto complainant has deliberately filed the complaint only to pressurise the petitioners to yield to his unlawful demands. In any given case, the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary and no recovery is to be effected. The petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the applications may be allowed.
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:7:- 6. The learned Public Prosecutors submitted that the Investigating Officer has handed over a report, wherein it is stated that the investigation is in progress and there are several disputes between the parties. The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary.
However, the petitioners are to be directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer for the proper and full investigation.
7. When B.A No.2088/24 came up for consideration on 12.3.2024, this Court, taking note of the fact that the alleged incident took place as early as on 29.12.2021, but Annexure A1 FIR was registered only on 10.2.2024, and further, that Annexures 23 to 25 establish that the matters are pending before the competent Civil Court, passed an interim order directing the Investigating Officer not to arrest the petitioners.
8. On an anxious consideration of the facts, the rival
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:8:- submissions made across the Bar, and the materials placed on record, especially taking note of the fact that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioners and the de facto complainant is sub-judice before the Commercial Court Ernakulam in CMA (Arb.) Nos.43 and 51/2024 and that the Investigating Officer has reported that the petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary, I am of the firm view that the petitioners are entitled to orders of pre -arrest bail, subject to the condition that they co-operate with the Investigating Officer. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail applications.
In the result, the applications are allowed subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within one week from today.
ii) In the event of the petitioners’ arrest, the
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:9:- Investigating Officer shall produce them before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.
iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;
iv) The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation as and when directed by the Investigating Officer ;
v). The petitioners shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner;
vi). The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail.
vii) The petitioners shall surrender their passport, if they possess the same, before the court below at the
B.A.Nos.2088 & 2323of 2024 -:10:- time of execution of the bond;
viii). In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law.
ix). Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below.
(x) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2020 (1) KHC 663].
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/27/3/2024