Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V
Judgment Date: 2015-10-30
Court Decision / Holding: Anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions: i) within 10 days, surrender before the IO for interrogation and execute a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties; ii) appear before the IO on the next two consecutive days at 10:00 AM for interrogation; iii) further attendance as required in writing; iv) surrender passport within a week; v) not to influence or intimidate witnesses; vi) not to leave India without permission; vii) if any condition is violated, bail may be canceled by the Magistrate without reference to this Court.
Final Disposition: BAIL GRANTED with conditions as above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sasikumar, S/o K.P. Sundaran

Respondents

State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Jacob Sebastian

Counsels for Respondents

• Public Prosecutor Sri Rajesh Vijayan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This anticipatory bail application concerns Sasikumar, accused no.3 in Crime No.771/2015 of Kuttipuram Police Station, Malappuram District, under Section 420 IPC (cheating). The first accused is alleged to have pledged spurious gold ornaments in several banks, securing large loans, and Sasikumar, a jewellery manufacturer based in Coimbatore, is said to have manufactured the gold ornaments with low carat value at the request of the first accused. The prosecution contends Sasikumar had a distinct role in the commission of the offense, while the petitioner maintains that his involvement was limited to manufacture and that the primary culpability lies with the first accused and possibly connivance of bank authorities. The petitioner also cites other pending cases (Crime Nos. 649/2015 and 674/2015) in which he is charged, noting that the same investigating officer handles these cases and that he has already undergone custodial interrogation. It is pointed out that the order in Annexure A1 (in B.A. 5090/2015) directed him to report to the investigating officer on specified days, which he has complied with. The court finds that further custodial interrogation is unwarranted and that the present offense is a duplication of the allegations in other cases. Consequently, the bail application is allowed with stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 438 CrPCSection 420 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner is a jewellery manufacturer from Coimbatore who manufactured low-carat gold ornaments at the request of the first accused; he contends he had no role in the actual cheating and that the primary culpability lies with the first accused, possibly with bank authorities. He has faced inquiries in related cases (649/2015 and 674/2015) and has already undergone incarceration for over a month; he argues that further custodial interrogation is unwarranted and that bail with safeguards is appropriate to allow the investigation to proceed without undue prejudice.

Contentions of Respondents

The State sought to safeguard the investigation and balance liberty with the need to interrogate the accused. While not detailing every argument, the State emphasized that the present case duplicates the allegations in connected cases and that the investigation should be allowed to proceed with oversight; custody may be necessary to ensure cooperation and to prevent witness tampering.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/8TH KARTHIKA, 1937** ## **Bail Appl..No. 5517 of 2015 ()** **------------------------------CRIME NO. 771/2015 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT** **-----------------------** **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:** **----------------------------------------------** **SASIKUMAR, S/O.K.P.SUNDARAN, AGED 40 YEARS, 6/38, ANNANAGAR, AMMANCOLONY N.S.PURAM, EDAYARPALAYAM, KUNIYAMUTHUR, COIMBATORE.** **BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN** **RESPONDENT/STATE: -----------------------------------** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION.** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **sts** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J. -------------------------------------------------------B.A.No.5517 of 2015 -------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 30[th] day of October, 2015** ## **O R D E R** This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The petitioner herein is the second accused in Crime No.771/2015 of Kuttipuram Police Station. The said crime has been registered for offence punishable under S.420 of the IPC. 3. The gist of the allegation is that, the first accused in the aforesaid crime had pledged spurious gold ornaments in various banks within Malappuram District and secured large sums by way of loans. The petitioner herein is alleged to be the manufacturer of the aforesaid spurious gold. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner also had a B.A.No.5517 of 2015 : 2 : distinct role to play in the commission of the offence along with the first accused. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of a jewellery and is based at Coimbatore. He however admitted that as requested by the first accused he had manufactured gold ornaments with low carat value. The first accused has pledged these gold ornaments before various banks and has obtained large sums by way loans and the petitioner has nothing to do with the same. According to the learned counsel, it is obvious that the offence was committed by the first accused with the active connivance of the bank authorities and the petitioner herein who is just a manufacturer of the gold ornaments cannot be B.A.No.5517 of 2015 : 3 : held liable for the acts of the first accused. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in addition to the aforesaid crime, Crime No.649/2015 of Kuttipuram Police Station and Crime No.674/2015 of Kuttipuram Police Station has been registered against the petitioner and others. In so far as Crime No. 674/2015 is concerned, the petitioner was arrested on 21.07.2015 and he was released on bail on 22.07.2015.In Crime No.649/2015 of Kuttipuram Police Station, the petitioner is arrayed as the third accused. In the aforesaid crime, the petitioner was arrested on 22.07.2015 and he was released on 02.09.2015. It is also submitted that the investigating officer in all the 3 crimes is the Station House Officer of the Kuttipuram police station. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for more than a month in connection with the above crimes. The learned counsel B.A.No.5517 of 2015 : 4 : referred to Annexure A1 order of this court passed in B.A.No.5090/2015 dated 02.09.2015 in Crime No.649/2015 of Kuttipuram police station. As per the said order, the petitioner has been enlarged on bail subject to conditions and as per condition No.III the petitioner has been directed to report before the investigating officer on all Mondays and Thursdays between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m until final report is filed. It is the further submission that the petitioner has been complying with the aforesaid conditions without fail. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has already undergone custodial interrogation in connected crimes. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and after having perused the materials on record, I am of the considered view that further custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unwarranted. It is clear from the records that the petitioner has already undergone B.A.No.5517 of 2015 : 5 : incarceration for more than a month in Crime No.649/2015 which is being investigated by the same investigating officer. The allegation in the instant crime is just a duplication of the allegation of the Crime No.674/2015 which also relates to the offense of cheating committed at the Federal Bank, Kuttipuram branch. It is also borne out, that on the date of registration of the instant crime, the petitioner was undergoing incarceration in Crime No.649/2015. Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that all the petition can be allowed with stringent conditions to safeguard the investigation : i. The petitioner shall, within 10 days, surrender before the investigating officer and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter, he shall execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) B.A.No.5517 of 2015 : 6 : with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. In that event, he shall be released on bail in the aforesaid crime. ii. The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer at 10.00 a.m. on the next two consecutive days and submit himself for interrogation. iii. If the investigating officer requires the attendance of the petitioner on any further occasion than the days mentioned above, he may direct the petitioner to appear in writing. iv. The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate concerned within a week from the date of appearance before the investigating officer. v. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. He shall not meddle in any manner with the investigation. vi. The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the learned B.A.No.5517 of 2015 : 7 : Magistrate concerned. vii. If any of the conditions above is violated, the Magistrate having jurisdiction is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court. The application is allowed as above. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.** Bb _[True copy]_ _P.A to Judge_