IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5688 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.466/09 OF VAZHAKULAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS (S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- 1. PRAVEENKUMAR, DEPUTY MANAGER, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., KOCHI. 2. KANNAN R, MANAKKATU HOUSE, KUMARANELLUR P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHAKULAM POLICE STATION, VAZHAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5688 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.466 of 2009 of Vazhakulam Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offence alleged against the petitioners is under Section 511 of 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The petitioners are the officers of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. It is stated that the first petitioner is working as Deputy Manager (Collection) of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and the second petitioner is working as Direct Recovery Agent of the said Bank. The prosecution case is that on 21.8.2009, the lorry belonging to the defacto complainant was attempted to be stolen with the help of accused Nos.4 to 8 who were hired for that purpose by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. It is also stated that the intention to repossess was not made known to the police. BA No.5688/2009 2 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 8th October, 2009, the following order was passed: “The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks further time to get instructions from the petitioners as to whether they are willing to file a statement on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. that Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and their officers would strictly follow the directions of the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur (2007(2) SCC 711). Post after a week. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested till then.” 5. An affidavit dated 28th October, 2009 was filed by the first petitioner. Though the acts allegedly committed by the petitioners were attempted to be justified in the affidavit, it is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit thus: “It is further submitted that Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Kochi has no intention to repossess the vehicle which has due and the owners are failed to repay the loan, by any unlawful means. It is also clarified and submitted most humbly that any repossession of vehicle for which the Bank has advanced loan and the owner failed to clear the due will be only in accordance with law.” BA No.5688/2009 3 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking into account the affidavit filed by the first petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence; c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail; d) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl BA No.5688/2009 4 K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.5688 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of October, 2009 ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks further time to get instructions from the petitioners as to whether they are willing to file a statement on behalf of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. that Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and their officers would strictly follow the directions of the Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur (2007(2) SCC 711). Post after a week. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested till then. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl