IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2783 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.247/2010 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. (S): APPLICANT/4TH ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- SHYAM NAIR,S/O.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA,IRINJALAKUDA BRANCH,RESIDING AT "PRAYAG",M.G.ROAD,IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION,THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, ALONG WITH B.A.2907/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application Nos.2783 & 2907 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 8th June, 2010. O R D E R These petitions are for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners are accused nos.1, 2 and 4 in the crime. According to prosecution, defacto complainant had 6 cents of property in her name. The said property was mortgaged to a Co-operative Service Bank and some amounts were due to the Bank. She wanted to re-pay the loan and hence, she approached third accused for raising money. The third accused introduced defacto complainant to 4th accused, who is the Manager of the Bank. The 4th accused, in turn introduced defacto complainant to first and second accused and explained to her that the amount will be paid by first and second accused to the Service Co-operative Bank, for which a loan can be raised from the State Bank of India, as purchase loan, which can be issued in favour of first and second accused. 3. The first and second accused paid the amount, BA NO.2783 & 2907/10 2 which is due to the Service Co-operative Bank and purchase loan was sanctioned in favour of them by the State Bank of India and Demand Draft for Rs.14 lakhs was issued in the name of defacto complainant. After getting the Demand Draft, the amount was encashed, but those amounts were taken by first and second accused. The defacto complainant contacted 4th accused and brought the above facts to his notice. The 4th accused told her that first and second accused would re-convey the property to her within a few days. But the property was not re-conveyed and the amount was lost by defacto complainant. According to her, she was cheated by all the accused, in furtherance of common intention and the money was also misappropriated. 4. Learned counsel appearing for accused nos.1 and 2 submitted that anticipatory bail application filed by petitioners before the Sessions Court was dismissed on the ground that there are no witnesses to the agreement executed between defacto complainant and petitioners. Petitioners have not committed any offence. As per the agreement, the amounts had to be re-paid towards loan by accused nos.1 and 2 and defacto complainant in BA NO.2783 & 2907/10 3 equal shares. The defacto complainant did not file any complaint until notice came from the Bank, it is submitted. 5. Learned counsel for 4th accused submitted that 4th accused is the Branch Manager of the Bank and he has not committed any offence. It is true that a purchase loan was sanctioned and the Demand Draft was handed over to defacto complainant for an amount of Rs.14 lakhs, but the Bank has absolutely no connection with the transaction between defacto complainant and the first and 2nd accused. It is also pointed out that since there was default in payment towards loan which was availed of by accused, the Bank proceeded against the property and at that time, defacto complainant filed the complaint. There are only bare allegations against petitioners, it is submitted. 6. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint, this is a case where all the accused, in furtherance of common intention, cheated defacto complainant and caused heavy loss to defacto complainant. At this stage, it cannot be said that none of the accused had no intention to commit the offences. All are BA NO.2783 & 2907/10 4 equally involved and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 7. On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made against petitioners and in the absence of any material at this stage to show that petitioners have no involvement in the entire transaction or that they have no dis-honest intention, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioners are bound to surrender and co- operate with the investigation. Petitions are dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs