High CourtsSingle Bench

Boban T. Mathew vs State Of Kerala And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 KL CK 0182

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 408, 418, 420
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 5009 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 536 words
1.

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.458/2018 of Chengamanad Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 408, 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2.

The applicant was the Manager of M/s A.J Exports, a vegetable and fruit exporter company proprietorship owned by the de facto complainant. The applicant was the Manager and the 2nd accused was the Accountant in the aforesaid concern. It is stated that the applicant being an employee of the de facto complainant allegedly misappropriated and cheated Rs. 3,34,400/- belonging to the concern.

3.

The applicant had earlier approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing B.A. No.1680/2018 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 23.03.2018 on the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the applicant has not been made an accused. Accordingly the application was disposed of. Now after so many years, he has been implicated as an accused and the crime intended to be proceeded against him.

4.

The applicant states that he has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation and that it is actually the 2nd accused who is the Accountant is responsible for the alleged swindling of money. Moreover, it is also stated the de facto complainant's wife is the Chief Accountant of the concern and it is impossible for the applicant to have swindled money without the knowledge of the Chief Accountant. The applicant therefore completely disassociates himself from this crime. There is no need for him to be subjected to custodial interrogation. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, seeks pre arrest bail.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The de facto complainant was served with notice, but did not appear.

6.

The crime is of the year 2018. The applicant was initially was not made an accused in this crime. It is in later point of time he was made an accused. The 2nd accused who is the Accountant has been an accused throughout. The 2nd accused was already granted anticipatory bail by this court in B.A. No.1567/2020 on 30.07.2020. The applicant is not likely to flee from justice. He is willing to cooperate with investigation. Apart from the alleged incident that took place in this crime, he is not involved in any other crime. Hence, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his arrest, after interrogation and recovery if any, he shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on following further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the investigating as and when called for.

(ii) He shall not also attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

(iii) He shall not get involved in any other similar crimes during the currency of the bail.

In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.