IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1166 of 2010() ---------------------------------------- CRIME NO.R.C.13(S)/2009 OF CBI SCB, COCHIN. ............. PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. K. JAYAPRAKASH, MADHAVI MANDIRAM, PERINGODE, PALAKKAD, NOW R/O AMBADY HOUSE, PARAPPURAM, KALADY. 2. MAYA KRISHNAN, W/O. K.JAYAPRAKASH, MADHAVI MANDIRAM, PERINGODE, PALAKKAD, NOW R/O AMBADY HOUSE, PARAPPURAM, KALADY. BY ADV. MR.VIJU ABRAHAM, MR.JOY C.PAUL. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI), COCHIN UNIT, REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. BY ADV. MR.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- B.A.No.1166 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in R.C.No.13 (S)/2009 of CBI, SCB, Kochi, registered for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120B, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that a conspiracy was hatched between seven accused, including the officials of State Bank of Travancore, Aluva Branch. The second petitioner availed a housing loan of Rupees Nine lakhs from State Bank of Travancore, Aluva on 8.9.1996 for construction of a house at Kizhakkambalam. Prosecution would allege that no house was constructed as represented and Rs.6.76 lakhs is still outstanding. First petitioner, the husband of the second petitioner, had separately availed an agricultural term loan of Rupees Ninety lakhs and gave security of thirty four acres of BA 1166/10 2 agricultural land, which is a Government land. It was alleged that all the acts were done in furtherance of the conspiracy entered into by all the accused. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for the CBI were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that first petitioner purchased the land, which was given as security, in 2006 and first petitioner did not enter into any conspiracy and after the purchase, he had paid the tax, which was received by the Village Officials and in such circumstances, the allegation that first petitioner committed offences is not sustainable. Learned counsel also pointed out that in any case, there is absolutely no case against the second petitioner, as, even if the case is accepted, there is non payment of the balance of BA 1166/10 3 the housing loan and it would not attract the alleged offences. 4. Learned standing counsel pointed out that it is the prosecution case that petitioners, along with the other accused, including the officials of State Bank of Travancore, conspired together to misappropriate the funds of the Bank and with the knowledge that it is a Government land, purchased the property and then gave it as security and thereby cheated the Bank. It is also pointed out that second petitioner had availed a housing loan undertaking that a building will be constructed, which will be a security for that loan and the investigation revealed that no building was constructed and for a proper investigation, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. It is also pointed out that, when the other accused were interrogated, materials were traced out to show the conspiracy and participation of the petitioners and in such circumstances, anticipatory bail may not be granted to the BA 1166/10 4 petitioners. 5.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that housing loan was availed for modification of an existing house and subsequently second petitioner was sent out of that house for committing default in payment of the housing loan and she had to approach this Court by filing a writ petition and by an order of this Court, she was permitted to occupy that house. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it just or proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner invoking the extraordinary powers under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure as custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. Application is dismissed. 25th March, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv