IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5045 of 2009() ----------------------------- .................... IN CRIME NO.230/2006 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 --------------------------------- M.P.MOHANKUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 030, RESIDING AT 48/422, GALAXY MARVEL APARTMENTS, EDAPALLY RAGHAVAN PILLAI ROAD, EDAPALLY NORTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU SRI.A.P.SUBHASH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------- CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (S.H.O), MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5045 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of November, 2009 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 15th October 2009, the following order was passed. “ This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.230 of 2006 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 120B, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The defacto complainant is a retired Government servant. His son had taken a loan from the State Bank of India. The property of the defacto complainant was mortgaged for that purpose. The loan fell due. The Bank was about to take proceedings under the Securitisation Act. 5. At that time, the defacto complainant saw an advertisement made by B.A. No. 5045 of 2009 2 the third accused in the newspaper that he would take over debts due to the Bank by providing loan. The third accused introduced the defacto complainant to the first accused (Anil Kumar). Anil Kumar promised to make appropriate arrangements. It is alleged that the petitioner herein, who is the second accused, Manager of South Indian Bank Ltd., Aranmula was approached by the first accused. The allegation is that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together and created documents in such a way that a loan of Rs.25 lakhs was sanctioned in the name of the defacto complainant on the security of the immovable property. It is also alleged that a document was registered as if that property was sold by the defacto complainant to the first accused. The prosecution alleges that the second accused is a party to the cheating and fraud and he has also received various amounts for the same. 6. The petitioner (second accused) states that he was working in the Bank for the last 29 years and he has an unblemished service record. There was no allegation against him at any point of time. The petitioner says that he was presented the 'best performer award' by the Bank. It is submitted that even in 2009, the petitioner was selected for the best performer award by the Bank. The petitioner has submitted a detailed representation to the City Commissioner of Police, Thiruvanthapuram City wherein he has narrated the incident in great detail showing all the minute details of the transaction. If what he says is correct, that is a matter to be taken into account by the investigating officer. B.A. No. 5045 of 2009 3 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that an opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and to explain all the relevant facts in respect of the case. The counsel for the petitioner submits if the petitioner gets such an opportunity, he would be able to prove his innocence. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 17th and 18th October 2009 and also on 24th and 25th October 2009. If appearance of the petitioner is necessary thereafter, it will be considered later. Post the case on 28th October, 2009. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.230 of 2006 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The Bail Application will be considered on the merits after the appearance of the petitioner before the investigating officer. It is made clear that the above directions are issued as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the mere fact that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer would not be a ground to grant anticipatory bail, if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant otherwise. ” 2. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner appeared B.A. No. 5045 of 2009 4 before the Investigating Officer in compliance with the order dated 15th October 2009. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has fully co-operated with the Investigating Officer in the matter. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Sundays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. B.A. No. 5045 of 2009 5 E) 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 kkms/