Arjun P. v. State of Kerala

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN** **TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 18TH MAGHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO.10637 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1629/2022 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY CRIME NO.665/2022 OF VALAPPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** ARJUN.P, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, RESIDING AT UTHAMALAYAM, PARAKKADAVU, P.O.MOTTAMMAL, ANCHAMPEEDIKA, KANUR DISTRICT-670331. BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH PRAJIT RATNAKARAN C.H.ABDUL RASAC ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031. BY ADV. SMT.NEEMA T.V., SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **B.A. No.10637 of 2022** 2 ## **O R D E R** ## **Dated, this the 07[th] February, 2023** This is a petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in Crime No.665/2022 of Valapattanam Police Station, where he alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 465, 471 of Indian Penal Code and Section 43 read with Section 66 of Information Technology Act, and the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The prosecution allegation in this case is that the petitioner while working as Manager of Kerala Tyre Sales Corporation at Pappinissery Kadavu Junction, during the period from 26.01.2022 to 19.05.2022, fraudulently and intentionally manipulated the accounts in the computer and day books and **B.A. No.10637 of 2022** 3 thereby misappropriated Rs.4,38,488/-. Thereafter, the misappropriation was detected. Subsequently, in order to return the misappropriated amount, the petitioner herein issued two cheques for the said sum, dated 11.07.2022 and 12.07.2022. But when the cheques were presented for collection, the same were returned with endorsement 'signature differs'. Since the cheques were returned with endorsement 'signature differs', the allegation of the defacto complainant/ prosecution is that the petitioner herein, in order to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant with deceitful intention in his mind, right from the very beginning, put different signatures to make unlawful enrichment to himself and to make corresponding loss to the defacto complainant. This is the premise on which the prosecution alleges commission of the above offences. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner ## **B.A. No.10637 of 2022** 4 would submit that the petitioner never misappropriated the amount and he was forced to issue the above cheques. 5. This submission appears to be not convincing, for the reason that the petitioner, who issued cheques after undertaking the liability could not raise such a contention, that too without raising any objection to the effect that he was forced to issue the above cheques, before any authorities till this date. 6. While strongly opposing bail to the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that wilful issuance of cheques, after putting 'false signatures' would definitely attract the above offences and, therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation are necessary. 7. To be on the crux of the matter, two cheques issued by the petitioner to discharge the liability to the tune of Rs.4,38,488/-, ## **B.A. No.10637 of 2022** 5 got dishonoured with endorsement 'signature differs', when presented for encashment. Therefore, the prosecution allegation as to commission of offences under Sections 408 and 420 by the accused is well made out, _'prima facie'_ and the same requires detailed investigation. However, it is relevant to note that on dishonour of the cheques, even with endorsement 'signature differs', the defacto complainant could very well initiate prosecution under Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred as 'NI Act', for short), alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. It is equally settled that, on the same facts, and investigation for the offences alleged herein also can go on simultaneously _._ 8. Since issuance of cheques and its dishonour with endorsement 'signature differs' is the crux of dispute, I am inclined to direct the petitioner to co-operate with the ## **B.A. No.10637 of 2022** 6 investigation, by subjecting himself for interrogation and by giving sufficient number of specimen signatures of the petitioner to facilitate investigation, if the Investigating Officer insists for the same. 9. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner can be enlarged on bail on the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can question the petitioner for one or two days as opted by the Investigating Officer and get sufficient number of specimen signatures and other essentials to effectuate investigation of the crime. In the event of his arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional court on the date of arrest itself. ii. On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release 7 ## **B.A. No.10637 of 2022** the petitioner on bail, on executing bond for Rs.30,000/(Rupees thirty thousand only) by himself and by two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court. iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation and shall be made available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation, as and when the Investigating Officer directs so. iv. The petitioner, shall not, intimidate the witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner. v. The petitioner shall not commit any offence during currency of this bail and any such involvement is a reason to cancel the bail hereby granted. Sd/- ## **A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.** ww 8 ## **B.A. No.10637 of 2022** ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL.10637/2022** PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 22-07-2022. ANNEXURE 2 REPLY NOTICE DATED 18-10-2022. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.MC NO. 1629/2022 DATED 22.12.2022 OF THE SESSIONS COURT THALASSERY.