MUHAMMED ASLAM A.M. @ ASLAM v. STATE OF KERALA

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: VIJU ABRAHAM
Judgment Date: 2022-07-20
Court Decision / Holding: The court allowed anticipatory bail for the petitioner under stringent conditions: (i) bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties; (ii) appearance before the investigating officer at Crime No. 650/2021 of Irinjalakkuda police on Saturdays at 11 a.m. until filing of final report; (iii) no interference or intimidation of witnesses; (iv) no involvement in any other crime while on bail. If breached, bail can be canceled. The court clarified that police may continue investigations and seek recoveries as permitted by law, referencing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663).
Final Disposition: Bail applications allowed (Anticipatory Bail granted)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

MUHAMMED ASLAM A.M. @ ASLAM

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Krishna Prasad
• Sindhu S Kamath
• Swapna S.K.
• Rohini Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• C.K. Suresh

Case Synopsis & Summary

This consolidated order concerns anticipatory bail applications filed by Muhammed Aslam A.M. @ Aslam, accused Nos. 10, 11, 14 and 15 in various Crime Branch cases arising from alleged fraudulent activities in the Karavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The petition relates to allegations of forgery, misappropriation and siphoning off a substantial amount by accused Nos. 1–6, with the petitioner as a director accused of dereliction of duty and collusion. The prosecution contends that, as a board member, the petitioner was duty-bound to verify loan documents and oversee compliance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the bank’s bye-laws, and that his conduct violated those duties and the relevant statutory provisions. The petitioners’ counsel argues that the petitioner, aged about 63, has no personal involvement in the alleged crimes; reliance is placed on Anx. A4 remand material and Clause 31(a) of the bank bye-law describing the board’s responsibility to ensure fair functioning and supervisory control. The State counters that serious allegations against directors justify stringent scrutiny. After considering the nature of the offences and the petitioner’s role, the court, though noting the gravity of the allegations against others, grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions, including a bond, regular appearance, non-interference with investigation, and prohibiting further criminal activity. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another to acknowledge police power for recoveries during bail proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 and r/w Section 34 of the IPCKerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants’ counsel contend that the petitioner, aged about 63, has no involvement in the alleged offences. Reliance is placed on Anx. A4 remand report and Clause 31(a) of the bank bye-law, which assigns the Board of Directors the overall responsibility to ensure fair functioning, compliance with Acts and rules, and supervisory control; thus, the petitioner’s role was supervisory rather than participatory in the alleged fraud.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that, as a director, the petitioner was duty bound to verify loan documents and ensure loans were sanctioned in accordance with law. Given the seriousness of the charges against more senior directors and the petitioner’s board position, there is a compelling interest in ensuring cooperation with the investigation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another	2020 (1) KHC 663	Positive	Cited to justify police power to effect recoveries and continue investigation even while bail is in place.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 9583 OF 2021** **CB PS CR.248/2021, CRIME BRANCH POLICE, CB CRIME NO.650/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10:** **MUHAMMED ASLAM. A.M @ ASLAM, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. MADARASA RAVUTHAR, ERVADIKKARAN HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH 680 125, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. KRISHNA PRASAD. S SINDHU S KAMATH SWAPNA S.K. ROHINI NAIR** **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682 031.** **BY ADV ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SR.PP - SRI. C.K.SURESH** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9594/2021, 10001/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 ..2.. **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 9594 OF 2021** **CB PS CR.249/2021, CRIME BRANCH POLICE, CB CRIME NO.650/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.10:** **MUHAMMED ASLAM.A.M @ASLAM AGED 64 YEARS, S/O MADARASA RAVUTHAR, ERVADIKKARAN HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH, PIN-680125, THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADVS. KRISHNA PRASAD.S SINDHU S KAMATH SWAPNA S.K. ROHINI NAIR** **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.** **BY ADV SRI.C.K.SURESH- SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9583/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 ..3.. **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 10001 OF 2021** **CB PS CR.313/2021, CRIME BRANCH POLICE, CB CRIME NO.650/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11:** **MUHAMMED ALSAM A.M. @ ASLAM AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MADARASA RAVUTHAR, ERVADIKKARAN HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH, PIN - 680 125, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. KRISHNA PRASAD. S SINDHU S KAMATH SWAPNA S.K. ROHINI NAIR** **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.** **BY ADV ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI. C.K. SURESH – SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9583/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 ..4.. **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 10009 OF 2021** **CB PS CR.253/2021, CRIME BRANCH POLICE, CB CRIME NO.650/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.14:** **MUHAMMED ASLAM A.M @ ASLAM AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MADARASA RAVUTHAR, ERVADIKKARAN HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH, PIN - 680 125, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. KRISHNA PRASAD. S SINDHU S KAMATH SWAPNA S.K. ROHINI NAIR** **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.** **BY ADV SRI.C.K.SURESH – SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9583/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 ..5.. **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 10008 OF 2021** **CB PS CR.302/2021, CRIME BRANCH POLICE, CB CRIME NO.650/2021 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.15:** **MUHAMMED ASLAM A.M. @ ASLAM AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.MADARASA RAVUTHAR, ERVADIKKARAN HOUSE, KATTUNGACHIRA DESOM, IRINJALAKUDA NORTH, PIN - 680 125, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. KRISHNA PRASAD. S SINDHU S KAMATH SWAPNA S.K. ROHINI NAIR** **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,PIN - 682 031.** **BY ADV ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.C.K.SURESH- SR.PP** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.07.2022, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9583/2021 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 ..6.. ## **O R D E R** **[Bail Appl. Nos.9583/2021, 9594/2021, 10001/2021, 10009/2021, 10008/2021]** Dated this the 20[th ] day of July, 2022 These are applications for Anticipatory Bail. 2. BA Nos.9583/2021 and 9594/2021 is filed by the accused No.10 in CB PS Cr No.248/2021 and 249/2021 of crime branch police, CB respectively and BA No.10001/2021 is filed by the accused No.11 in CB PS Cr No.313/2021 of crime branch police, CB and BA No.10008/2021 is filed by the accused No.15 in CB PS Cr No.302/2021 of crime branch police, CB and BA No.10009/2021 in CB PS Cr No.253/2021 of crime branch police, CB (Crime No.650/2021 of Irinjalakkuda police station) alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 and r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Petitioner in all these bail applications is the same. 3. The prosecution case is that, petitioners are the members of the board of directors of the Karavannur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, No112, Karavannur, in which fraudulent activities are detected to have been committed, basically by BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** accused Nos.1 to 6 with dishonest intention to cheat the bank and its depositors deliberately violating the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and committed forgery and mis-appropriated and siphoned off huge amount of the bank. The main allegation against the petitioner, who is one of the directors of the board is that he in this capacity as the Board director has colluded with the other accused in the alleged offence. It is the case of the petitioner that, it is upon the complaint filed by him and other board of directors that the illegality committed by the accused Nos.1 to 6 was brought to the notice of the authorities. 4. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, upon instruction, submitted that it is accused Nos.1 to 6 who has fact committed the offences in Crime No.165/CB/TSR/R/2021 crime branch police, Thrissur and other cases and the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he being a member of the board was duty bound to verify the documents relating to the loan and there is dereliction of duty on his part and the same is in violation of the provisions of the Act and the bylaws and the directions issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on Anx.A4 – remand report produced in BA No.9594/2021 argued that, the specific allegation against the board of directors is that, they who are holding the overall charge and control of the bank in the capacity of its Board of Directors and legally delegated with the powers to ensure its fair functioning, vide Clause.31 (a) of bank bye-law which says that it is the sole responsibility of the Board of Directors of the bank to ensure that the day-to-day functioning of the bank is in a fair manner adhering to the Acts and Rules in force and to control and supervise the activities of the bank accordingly, have deliberately omitted to abide by the cited bye-law. 6. The petitioner submitted that he is aged 63 years and has absolutely no involvement in the alleged crime. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that it is true that the serious allegation of siphoning the amounts are alleged against accused Nos.1 to 6 but the petitioner being a member of the board was duty bound to see that loans are sanctioned in accordance with law. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the allegation, I am inclined to BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions. In the result, the bail application is allowed. Petitioner shall surrender before the investigation officer on 25[th] July, 2022 at 11.00AM and shall subject himself for interrogation and on any other day/days as directed by the investigating officer. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the above said crime he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court and shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court; (ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.650/2021 of Irinjalakkuda police station, on every Saturday at 11 am until filing of final report and the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation; (iii) The Petitioner shall not attempt to BA. Nos.9583, 9594, 10001 & 10009, 10008/2021 **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.650/2021 of Irinjalakkuda police station; (iv) The Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.650/2021 of Irinjalakkuda police station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail. It is made clear that it is within the power of the 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 (2020 (1) KHC 663)** . Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE** ded/20.07.2022