Dhanya.P.K vs. State Of Kerala - Kerala High Court, 11 October 2019

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

The applicants herein are husband and wife and they have been arrayed as accused Nos. 1 & 2 in Crime No. 632/2019 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station, registered under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 477A & 120B of the IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the 1st applicant used to work as the Secretary of the Thrissur Industrial Co-operative Society Ornament Workers Society during the period from 2007 to March, 2017. A complaint was lodged before the Circle Inspector of Police, Thrissur East Police Station alleging that during the period of her employment, the applicants manipulated and fabricated the records and misappropriated huge sums of money from the society. It is alleged that the 2nd accused actively aided the 1st accused in committing the offences.

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that there is no truth in the allegations. He would further contend that the 1st accused was victimized by the office bearers of the society and she had to proceed on leave. He would also refer to Annexure-B complaint filed by the 1st applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pursuant to dishonour of a cheque issued by the

Bail Appl..No.5283 OF 2019 ..3.. former office bearers of the society and Annexure-C complaint lodged by her before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. According to the learned counsel, it is much after the filing of Annexures-B & C complaints that the de facto complainant had approached the police in the month of May, 2019 and set the law in motion. It is further submitted that the 2nd applicant is a clerk in the GST Department of the State and he has nothing to do with the acts committed by the 1st accused.

Sri.K.I.Sageer, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, has very strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that a detailed complaint was lodged by the president of the society, detailing the manipulations carried out by the 1st applicant, which is self explanatory. According to the learned counsel, by the acts of the accused, the society has incurred a loss of over Rs.1 Crore.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has also opposed the prayer.

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records. In the detailed complaint lodged by the party respondent, the nature of misappropriation carried out by the 1st applicant is mentioned in detail. Large amounts of public money is involved and having gone through the records, I am not in a position to conclude that the allegations against the 1st applicant are frivolous. A

Bail Appl..No.5283 OF 2019 ..4.. proper investigation is to be carried out and arming the 1st applicant with an order of pre-arrest bail is likely to adversely affect the investigation. However, the allegation against the 2nd applicant is vague and unsubstantiated. He appears to have been arrayed as the accused as he is the husband of the 1st accused. In the facts and circumstances, his custodial interrogation does not appear to be warranted. In the result, this application will stand partly allowed. The application insofar as it concerns the 1st applicant will stand dismissed. She shall surrender before the Investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. If she files an application for regular bail on her production before the juri ictional Magistrate, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits. The 2nd applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions: i) The 2nd applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

Bail Appl..No.5283 OF 2019 ..5.. ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the juri ictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., Bka/11.10.2019 JUDGE