Sisupalan and P. Rajan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **MONDAY, THE 14[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 5984 OF 2021** **----------------------** **Crime No.1466/2019 of Thiruvallom Police Station,** ## **Thiruvananthapuram** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1369/2021 OF I ADDITIONAL** ## **DISTRICT COURT, TRIVANDRUM** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** 1 SISUPALAN AGED 60 YEARS S/O KOCHUMMINI, SAJITHA NIVAS, VAZHAMUTTOM, PACHALLOOR P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 2 P.RAJAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, ERATHUVILAKATHU VEEDU, PACHALLOOR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. R.T.PRADEEP M.BINDUDAS K.C.HARISH ## **RESPONDENT/STATE:** 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 ADDL.R2.P.SATHEESH KUMAR AGED 43 YEARS S/O PRABHAKARAN, PRESIDENT, SCHOOL WORKING COMMITTEE, VIVEKANANDA VIDYA PEEDAM, PACHALLOOR.P.O., THIRUVALLOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695027. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/11/2021 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2021 3 ADDL.R3.PRAMOD.S (SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED) BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 2 .. BY ADVS. SAIJO HASSAN BENOJ C AUGUSTIN RAFEEK. V.K. P.PARVATHY AATHIRA SUNNY NAZRIN HALLAJ LAKSHMINARAYAN.R AKHILESH S. ABHIRAMI DINESH RENJINI M. RENJITH ROSE MATHEW K.N.MUHAMMED THANVEER ## **OTHER PRESENT:** PP – SRI. M.C.ASHI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 3 .. ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ## **B.A. No.5984 of 2021** = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14[th] day of November, 2022 ## **O R D E R** This is an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The petitioners are accused Nos.9 and 10 in Crime No.1466/2019 of Thiruvallom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 120 B, 423, 467, 479 and Section 406 of the IPC. 3. The prosecution allegation is that, the de facto complainant is the working president of Vivekananda Vidya Peedom Upper Primary School at Pachalloor which is owned by Bharatheeya Vidya Niketan. The accused Nos.9 and 10 who were the former secretary and member of working committee of Vivejananda Vidya Peedom School forged and fabricated bogus minutes of the working committee of the school purporting to confer authority to sell the property of Vidya Niketan having an extent of 8.07 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No.381/15 as per Sale Deed No.1599/2007. They conspired together and in furtherance thereof had sold 5 cents BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 4 .. of property to accused Nos.1 to 8 for a total s ale consideration of Rs.27,50,000/- as per Sale Deed No.1602/2018 with the recital that the said amount is deposited in the school account and thereby mutually aided in snatching the property. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the above said crime and it is further submitted that the school in question was started in the year 1978 by the right thinking members of the society who believed in the sanadhana dharma forming part of the rich cultural heritage of the country under the name and style as Vivekananda Vidya Peedom Upper Primary School, Pachalloor which has nothing to do with Bharatheeya Vidya Niketan. They don't have any allegiance to any organization. The 1[st] petitioner came to the post of Secretary of the school committee in the year 1993 and he continued in the said post for 28 years till 2020. The 2[nd] petitioner was the Treasurer of the school committee from 2010 to 02.02.2020. The school committee is comprised of 8 members including President, Secretary and Treasurer. The property was purchased during the tenure of 1[st] petitioner for the development of the School. It became incumbent upon the school committee to provide infrastructure facilities to the BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 5 .. school to notch up to the standard of schools in the locality. This was done by borrowing funds from others as the school was running by incurring heavy loss. The school committee propelled a monthly collection scheme from well-wishers and parents of the school to clear the mounted debts of the school. This became insufficient considering the quantum of debts. The creditors of the school pressed for return of money and threatened with legal action. The committee in this financial imbroglio decided to sell 5 Cents of property in favour of 8 persons to defray the outstanding debts as per Resolution No.7 dated 30.9.2018. On the authority of the resolution passed by the committee, the 1[st] petitioner executed sale deed in favour of accused Nos.1 to 8 on 6.10.2018. 5. While the school was functioning smoothly, local R.S.S. hatched out a plan to wrest control over the school. The committee was ousted and physical possession of the school was taken over by flexing muscles. The de-facto complainant became the selfproclaimed Secretary of the school which has no sanction of law. To keep away the school committee from the administration of the school, the false case is foisted against the petitioners. It is further submitted that a suit was filed by the accused Nos.1 to 8 against the BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 6 .. petitioners herein as OS No.771/2019 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking permanent injunction, putting up boundary and consequential reliefs as against the petitioners herein with respect to the properties, which was sold and they have obtained and order of injunction also. It is also submitted that the Bharatheeya Vidyaniketan along with the de facto complainant and the principal of the School have also preferred a suit as OS No.114/2019 Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram seeking to set aside the sale deed and also for a permanent prohibitory injunction and other consequential reliefs. The contention of the petitioner is that the School as well as the property is owned by the Vivekananda Vidya Peedom and not by Bharatheeya Vidya Peedom, which is a totally different entity registered under the T.C. Act. Bharatheeya Vidya Niketan is controlled by RSS and the obvious attempt is to grab the school as well as its property by Bharatheeya Vidya Niketan ousting Vivekananda Vidya Peedom. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a notice was issued to them as early as on 15.05.2020 as part of the investigation and they have appeared before the investigation officer and all the documents have been produced. The petitioners BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 7 .. apprehends that there is an attempt to arrest them and in the said circumstances they have moved before the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram seeking for bail but the same was rejected as per Anx.3 – order. 6. The de facto complainant was impleaded in the said case. One Pramod.S have sought to be impleaded as the Addl. 3[rd] respondent mainly contending that he is the present president of the Vivekananda Vidya Peedom Upper Primary School and he was represented by a counsel and he seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the property has been sold and the sale proceeds have not been accounted to the account of the School. 7. The petitioners specific case that for purchasing the property for the purpose of the School as per Sale Deed No.1599/2007 of of SRO, Thiruvallom, the committee decided to collect a fund of Rs.10,00,000/- and the committee decided to purchase the property by raising fund by way of interest by loan by executing necessary promissory note as security for the repayment of the amount and thus, the amounts were collected and the property was purchased. The accused Nos.1 to 8 are creditors to the institution for the amount as detailed below:- BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 8 .. |1.|Sajimon|:|RS.3,50,000/-| |---|---|---|---| |2.|Suresh|:|Rs.4,00,000/-| |3.|Anilkumar|:|Rs.5,00,000/-| |4.|Baby|:|Rs.3,00,000/-| |5.|Bindu Manoharan|:|Rs.3,00,000/-| |6.|Geetha Devi Sathyapalan|:|Rs.3,00,000/-| |7.|Baby Sisupalan|:|Rs.3,00,000/-| |8.|Seema|:|Rs.3,00,000/-| They agreed to forego their respective liabilities in lieu of 5 Cents of property and the amount due to them to a tune of Rs.27,50,000/- was shown as sale consideration so as to avoid any future claim from them. The property was transferred to accused Nos.1 to 8 in view of the money payable to them to a tune of Rs.27,50,000/-. As a matter of fact the sale consideration shown in the document is the amount payable to the vendees ie; the reason why no such amount is seen credited in the bank account of the School. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the allegation against the petitioners is that they have forged the minutes and sold the property having 5 Cents in the name of the School and received an amount of Rs.27,50,000/- and did not account the said amount in the account maintained by the School and thus committed the BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 9 .. alleged offence. 9. It is seen that the said crime is registered as early as in 2019, and a not to arrest order has been issued by this Court on 13.10.2021, which is still in force. It is true that the 1[st] petitioner has appeared pursuant to the notice issued as part of the investigation, but he specifically submitted that the minutes books etc., were entrusted with the lawyer in connection with OS No.114/2019 and other documents including account books are still in the School. When notice was issued to the principal of the School it was reported that none of the documents are available in the School. Later again the 1[st] petitioner was issued notice u/s.91 of the Cr.P.C to produce the minutes book and connected records and he has produced the minutes book and the connected records before the investigating officer. On further investigation, it is found that accused Nos.1 to 8 were not involved in the alleged crime and their name has been subsequently deleted and a report to that effect has been submitted before the jurisdictional court. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioners and also taking into consideration the fact that the Crime has been BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 10 .. registered as early as on 2019, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to stringent conditions. In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 21.11.2022, at 11 a.m, and subject themselves for interrogation on that day and on any other day/days as directed by the investigating officer. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation. In the event of arrest in Crime No.1466/2019 of Thiruvallom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Court on the very same day and shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:- (i) Petitioners shall execute 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 jurisdictional court ; (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.1466/2019 of Thiruvallom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, on every Saturday, at 11 am, until the filing of the final report; BA No.5984 of 2021 .. 11 .. (iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to (contact the victim or the _defacto_ complainant) or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.1466/2019 of Thiruvallom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram; (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.1466/2019 of Thiruvallom Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram 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 any of 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/