Geetha v. State of Kerala

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944 ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` CRIME NO.853/2022 OF Karunaagapally Police Station, Kollam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CRMC 1714/2022 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & II ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/ACCUSED:`** ``` GEETHA AGED 47 YEARS W/O.PRADEEPNATH, 'AMBIYIL', K.S.PURAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690528 ``` ``` BY ADVS.K.SIJU ANJANA KANNATH T.S.SREEKUTTY ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031 2STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, PIN – 690518. ``` ``` BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.C.ASHI ``` ``` THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## **`ORDER`** This is an application seeking anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.853 of 2022 of Karunagapally Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 406, 408, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is briefly narrated as follows:- During the period between February, 2013 and June, 2013, while the petitioner was working as the Assistant Manager of Karunagapally Branch of M/S.Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited, swindled a sum of Rs.34,02,213/- deposited by 28 customers in different Fixed Deposits by illegally closing the same. Further, during the period from January, 2014 to December, 2014 while working as the Assistant Manager of the Thazhava Branch of the Bank, she fraudulently closed 60 Fixed ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -3- ``` Deposits, amounting to Rs.80,19,186/- deposited by various customers, and transferred the amount to the accounts of some third parties without the knowledge and consent of depositors. Thereafter, these amounts were encashed by the petitioner through various modes and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.1,14,21,399/- to the Bank. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she had not intentionally or deliberately committed any offences as alleged. According to the petitioner, the Karunagapally Branch of the Dhanalakshmi Bank is dealing with the transactions of high profile customers. All the accounts and transactions were under and as per the instructions of higher-ups and responsible officers of the Bank. 4. Heard Sri.Siju Kamalasanan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.C.Ashi, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -4- ``` 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed the following grounds in support of the bail plea of the petitioner: - A) The alleged transactions happened during the period 2013-2014, whereas the offences were reported only in 2022, even though there was periodical auditing. - B) One officer alone of the Bank, like the petitioner, could not effect the alleged transactions successfully as all the transactions are done digitally. - C) Periodical accounting is regularly done in respect of the entire transactions of the Bank. - D) None of the depositors approached the police with a complaint that the money deposited by them was misappropriated by the petitioner or any other officials of the Bank. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -5- ``` - E) The registration of this crime is with an intent to save high profile officials of the Bank who might have some link with the alleged misappropriation. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the transactions made in digital mode are processed through different Bank staff, each using their own password to effect transactions. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without the sanction of the Branch Manager of the Bank, who is the final authority to accord sanction, no transaction could be done as alleged. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on Annexure 5 medical certificate, submitted that the petitioner is suffering from Carcinoma Lt.Breast. Annexure 5 medical certificate would show that the petitioner underwent Left Wide Local Excision (Breast) and that she needs further adjuvant chemotherapy followed by Radiation treatment. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -6- ``` 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and she is prepared to co-operate with the investigation. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly required to trace, whether anyone else is involved in the case apart from the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that recovery of the fixed deposit receipts and other relevant records, which are under the possession of the petitioner, is also required to complete the investigation successfully. 10. The alleged transactions occurred in 2013 and 2014. The crime was registered after a long lapse of eight years. The Investigating Officer reported that the physical presence of the petitioner is inevitable for finding out whether anyone else was involved in this case ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -7- ``` apart from the petitioner. 11. The petitioner is a lady. There is no possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice. 12. Having gone through the materials placed before the Court, I am of the view that the petitioner could establish a prima facie case for getting the benefits contained in Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Though this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor that uninterrupted investigation of the case may be affected if the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not facilitated, cannot be lost sight of. Deducing the broad principles for granting pre-arrest bail as provided under Section 438 Cr.P.C. the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in **Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and another** v. **State of** ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -8- ``` **Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632)** held that while granting relief under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C, appropriate conditions can be imposed under sub-section (2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. It was held that one of such conditions could even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. In the result, the bail application is allowed as follows: - I) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 29.10.2022. - II) The Station House Officer, Karunagapally is directed to release the petitioner on bail, if she is arrested, on her executing bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. - III) The petitioner should surrender herself to the police for a brief period, if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -9- ``` - IV) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses in this case or tamper with the evidence. - V) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays for a period of three months or till the Final Report is filed, whichever is earlier. ``` K.BABU JUDGE ``` ``` VV ``` ``` BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 ``` ``` -10- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7784/2022`** |`PETITIONER`|`ANNEXURES`| |---|---| |`Annexure1`|`THE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.853/2022`| ||`OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION`| ||`DATED 22.6.2022`| |`Annexure2`|`THE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.C`| ||`NO.1714/2022 DATED 26.9.2022 ON THE`| ||`FILE OF II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT,`| ||`KOLLAM`| |`Annexure3`|`THE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DATED`| ||`15.6.2022 ISSUED BY THE DEFACTO`| ||`COMPLAINANT TO THE PETITIONER`| |`Annexure4`|`THE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE DATED`| ||`4.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER`| |`Annexure5`|`THE COPY OF TREATMENT CERTIFICATE`| ||`ISSUED BY THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,`| ||`DEPARTMENT OF GYNOCOLOGICAL ONCOLOGY`| ||`DATED 27.5.2019`|