Krishnanunni S vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P., J.

The accused in Crime No.452/2023 of Cherpulassery Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, have filed this application seeking pre-arrest bail.

The second respondent - defacto complainant herein had complained to the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies alleging that the appointment of three persons mentioned therein has been made after collecting huge amounts of money from them by the Committee in office administering the Society. It is also pointed out that the entire selection is vitiated.

Learned senior counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar argues that the petitioner in BA No.6343/2023 is only a Peon, while the petitioner in BA No.6350/2023 is the Accountant in the Society. He argues that the petitioner in BA No.6343/2023, being a Peon himself, could not have made any offer for an appointment. The allegation that he has taken money is obviously wrong. As regards the petitioner in BA No.6356/2023, he argues that he is not even a staff in the society to be implicated in the crime. The petitioner in BA No.6262/2023 was the President of the Committee at the relevant time. Learned counsel who appeared for the said petitioner argues that the Joint Registrar has found that the selection made is in order, and therefore, the allegation that money was taken is obviously wrong.

The Learned Public Prosecutor who filed a report opposing the bail application submits that the three persons had taken Rs.25,00,000/-each so as to give the appointment, and it is a matter to be investigated, including through a custodial interrogation.

Learned counsel who appeared for the defacto complainant submitted that the selection process itself was challenged, and in the earlier writ petition, there was a direction to conduct an enquiry into the complaints. After that, the vigilance of the co-operative department clearly found substance in the allegations of corruption, and therefore, a proper investigation should be conducted, including a custodial interrogation.

Having considered the rival submissions, I am of the view that the petitioner in BA No.6343/2023 is only a Peon and prima facie, he could not have either offered an appointment or taken money for that. I find force in the contention of the senior learned Senior counsel as far as the petitioner in BA No.6343/2023 is concerned. As regards the other petitioners, it is to be noted that there are specific allegations made against them in the enquiry, at least in the preliminary stage. I do not think that the applicants, except the petitioner in BA No.6343/2023, are entitled to anticipatory bail.

Under such circumstances, I dismiss the request for anticipatory bail submitted by the accused in BA Nos. 6262/2023, 6350/2023 & 6356/2023. Therefore, the following directions are issued:-

In the event the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer in two weeks, they shall be interrogated and thereafter, shall be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on the date of surrender itself. If the petitioners move for bail, the court below shall, untrammelled by any of the observations in this order, consider the bail applications on merit as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioners do not surrender before the Investigating Officer, as directed above, the Investigating Officer will be free to arrest the petitioners as if no order has been passed in this case.

As far as the applicant in BA No.6343/2023, he will be entitled to anticipatory bail. Under such circumstances, I am inclined to allow the application on the following conditions:-

i. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a week from today, and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioner. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.

ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail, on executing a separate bond for Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty-five thousand only) by the petitioner and by two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs them to do so.

(iv) The petitioner shall not intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the Investigation in any manner.

v. The petitioner shall not be involved in any offence while on bail.

vi. If any of the above conditions are violated, the court concerned will be empowered to take steps for cancellation of bail as per law.

It is made clear that it is within the power of police to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners, even when the petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State ( NCT of Delhi) and another [2021 (1) KHC 663].

Accordingly, BA No.6343/2023 is allowed, and BA Nos.6262/2023, 6350/2023 & 6356/2023 are dismissed.