Baby Kuttan vs State Of Kerala

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure  Code,  1973.

Petitioners  are  accused  Nos.1  and  2  in  Crime  No.  2024/2023 of Eravipuram Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners, alleging offences punishable under Section  420  r/w  Section  34  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code,  1860.

The  prosecution  case  is  that,  the  de  facto  complainant  is  the Area Manager of Cholamandalam Investments and Finance Pvt. Ltd., Kollam, engaged in the business of providing vehicle loan. Accused herein are the Managing Directors of M/s.Kalikkasseril Motors Pvt. Ltd., engaged in the sale of commercial vehicles. Though dealership run by the accused, two customers, by name ‘Smt.Fathima Beevi and Muhammed Basheer’, had approached the de facto complainant’s office for a loan and based on the said application, a vehicle loan of Rs.5,09,339/- was granted to Fathima Beevi and a loan of Rs.4,33,500/- was granted to Muhammed Basheer, and a total of Rs.9,42,839/- was transferred to the Bank account of the accused maintained at Federal Bank, Kadappakada Branch, Kollam. But the accused failed to deliver the vehicle or return the amount as promised. Hence, it is alleged that the accused committed the offences.

Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.

The  counsel  for  the  petitioners  submitted  that  even  if  the entire  allegations  are  accepted,  the  offence under Section  420 of   IPC is not made   out.   The   learned   counsel further submitted that the complaint  was  filed  after about three years. It  is  also  submitted  that  the  account  of  the  petitioners’ establishment was frozen, and that is why the entire  issue has arisen.  The  learned  counsel  submitted  that  the  entire dispute will  be settled once  the account  is unfreeze.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and  submitted  that  the  allegations  against  the  petitioners  are serious in nature.

This  Court  considered  the contentions  of  the  learned  counsel for the petitioners and  the learned Public Prosecutor. From the  facts  narrated  in  the first information report, whether an offence under  Section 420 of  IPC  is  made  out  or  not,  is  a matter  to  be  investigated  by  the Investigating  Officer.  I  do  not want  to  make  any  observations about the same. From the facts  in  this  case,  I  am of the  considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the  petitioners is not necessary. Petitioners can be directed to appear before the Investigating Officer  as  and when required.

Moreover, it is a  well  accepted  principle  that,  the bail is  the rule  and the jail  is the  exception.  The Hon'ble  Supreme Court in  Chidambaram  P.  v.  Directorate  of  Enforcement  (2019  (16) SCALE 870), after considering   all the   earlier judgments, observed that, the  basic  jurisprudence relating  to bail  remains the  same  inasmuch  as  the  grant of  bail  is  the  rule  and refusal is  the  exception  so  as  to ensure  that,  the  accused has  the opportunity  of  securing  fair trial 9. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application  is  allowed  with  the  following  directions:

i. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

ii.After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

iii.Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

iv.Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;

v.Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;

If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.

Needless  to  mention,  it  would  be  well  within  the  powers  of the Investigating Officer  to  investigate  the  matter  and,  if necessary,  to effect  recoveries  on  the  information,  if  any  given by the petitioners even  while  the  petitioners  are  on  bail  as laid down  by the Hon'ble  Supreme  Court  in  Sushila  Aggarwal v.  State (NCT of Delhi)  and  another  [2020  (1)  KHC  663].