Liji Thankappan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1942** ## **Bail Appl..No.1867 OF 2020** **CRIME NO.306/2019 OF VELLOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** ## **PETITIONER:** **LIJI THANKAPPAN AGED 44 YEARS, OOROTHU VEEDU, MEVELLOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.VIDYASAGAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 031** - **2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLOOR POLICE STATION, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST,PIN-686 609** - **3 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KADUTHURUTHY, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DIST,PIN-686 604** ## **BY SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** B.A. NO.1867 OF 2020 2 ## **O R D E R** **Dated this the 14th day of August 2020** .. **This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference.** **2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.306 of 2019 of Velloor Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 470, 469, 405, 406, 467, 468, 465 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).** **3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is a Junior Clerk in a Service Co-operative Bank. The 1[st] accused is the Secretary, the 3[rd] accused is the Accountant and the 4[th] accused is the President of the Service Co-operative Bank. The allegation is that the accused forged several false documents and allotted personal loan to several persons including their close relatives, in excess of the loan limit and without obtaining sufficient security.** B.A. NO.1867 OF 2020 3 **4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner** **and the learned public prosecutor.** **5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all other accused were released on bail. The petitioner is also similarly situated to the other accused. The counsel submitted that Annexure A3 order is the bail order of the one of the accused. The counsel submitted that, the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grant her bail.** **6. The learned Public Prosecutor, even though, opposed the bail application, submitted that, in the light of Annexure A3 order, this Court grant her bail, stringent conditions may be imposed.** **7. After hearing both sides, I think, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, one of the accused is released on bail by this Court as per order dated 7.8.2019 in B.A.No.39/2019. The relevant portions of the order are extracted hereunder:** _**“5. Admittedly, petitioner joined the service in 2009. Hence, the liability, if any, can be fastened on her only for the period after her joining. It is also seen that allegation is of collective**_ B.A. NO.1867 OF 2020 4 _**responsibility. Individual liability and the role played by each of the accused is yet to be unearthed.**_ _**6. Records reveal that an enquiry was conducted by the unit inspector of Assistant Registrar's office (Vaikom). It discloses that accounts were audited upto to 2015-2016. The above officer found that there were irregularities in the allotment of loan, recovery of loan and no proper accounts were maintained. Excess loans, than permitted were released. The total liability involved was Rs.68 Crores. It was also found that loans were sanctioned to several relatives of the employees and the Governing Board members, without sufficient security.**_ _**7. The essential allegation against the second accused in the above report is that she had taken loan in her name and loan arrears is Rs.9 Lakhs. Loan granted to her relatives was in arrears totaling Rs.18.90 Lakhs. There is further allegation that loan of one Madhavi was sought to be discharged by giving cheque to the second accused. She credited the amount in her own account and the loan was re-paid in several installments. The amount is further due. Said Madhavi was not aware of the re-payment of the loan. It is proved by record that the first accused surrendered on 25.4.2019. He was granted bail by order in B.A. No.3553 of 2019 by this Court. This Court had noted that investigation officer had revealed that no forged documents could be recovered even after the custody of the first accused.**_ _**8. In the nature of the above allegations, the materials gathered, and considering the fact that most of the transactions are covered by documentary**_ B.A. NO.1867 OF 2020 5 _**evidence, I feel that custodial interrogation of the second accused is not essential, though she is bound to co-operate with the investigation.”**_ **The petitioner in the above case was also a Junior Clerk in the above bank. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the fact that a co-accused is already released on bail, this bail application is allowed on stringent conditions.** **8. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.** **9. 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** B.A. NO.1867 OF 2020 6 **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.** **10. 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:** **1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;** **2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, she shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;** **3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for** B.A. NO.1867 OF 2020 7 **interrogation as and when required. The petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;** **4. The petitioner shall not leave India without permission of the Court;** ## **5. The petitioner shall not commit** **an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is** ## **suspected;** **6. The petitioner shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic;** ## **7. If any of the above conditions** B.A. NO.1867 OF 2020 8 **are violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.** **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** ## **pkk** **JUDGE**