Back
High Court of Kerala
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. HEMA
Samdeep Varghese & Another
Versus
State of Kerala, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam & Others
Bail Appl.No.2003 of 2010 & 2638 of 2010
Decided on : 11-06-2010
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 438 - Saving inheritance powers of the High court - Jurisdiction - Seeking anticipatory bail - Conspiracy - Dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the company and committed acts of forgery, impersonation etc - Complaint filed by the representative of a Company, which is engaged in the business of trading and distribution of petrochemicals in India and overseas, a crime was registered against nine persons, alleging offences under Sections 65, 66, 66A, C and D of the Information Technology Act and Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code - First accused was working as General Manager in Reliance India Limited for a very long time, and he earned a very good reputation. Later, he joined the company of the complainant and worked as the Vice President for a period of two years - Held, accused is arrested on the basis of the vague allegations made against her, and on the strength of a warrant issued under S.73 of the Code to aid investigation, it is likely that she may suffer irreparable injury. Her apprehension appears to be reasonable. Taking all the above aspects into consideration, I think it only fit to grant anticipatory bail to 6th accused. However, the request of first accused cannot be entertained, since I am not satisfied that he is likely to be arrested in Kerala in near future - appeal is dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court has jurisdiction to consider anticipatory bail applications within the territorial limits where the applicant apprehends arrest. The court emphasized that the place where the arrest is threatened should confer jurisdiction for such applications (!) (!) .
The court noted that an applicant seeking anticipatory bail must demonstrate a reasonable belief that they may be arrested within its jurisdiction, and that the apprehension is imminent and not merely fanciful (!) (!) .
The court found that the first accused, who is residing abroad in Singapore and has not shown any imminent likelihood of arrest within Kerala, does not satisfy the criteria for anticipatory bail in Kerala (!) (!) .
Conversely, the 6th accused, who is a permanent resident of Kerala and resides in Cochin, has a reasonable apprehension of arrest within Kerala, given the ongoing investigation and the circumstances of the case (!) (!) .
The court observed that the order for anticipatory bail should not be granted if the arrest is based on vague allegations or if the warrant used for arrest is not properly issued according to legal requirements (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
It was highlighted that a warrant issued solely to aid investigation, especially if not in proper form or not issued following due legal procedures, may be illegal and cannot be used as a basis for arrest (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the arrest should be justified by reasonable grounds, and that arresting a person on suspicion alone, without proper investigation or evidence, can cause irreparable injury and hardship (!) (!) .
The court acknowledged the willingness of the 6th accused to cooperate with the investigation and her readiness to be interrogated, which supports the grant of anticipatory bail (!) (!) .
The order granted anticipatory bail to the 6th accused is conditional, including reporting to the Investigating Officer, not influencing witnesses, and cooperating with the investigation, with the order valid only for 30 days or until her arrest, whichever is earlier (!) (!) .
The petition for anticipatory bail by the first accused was dismissed as not maintainable, since there was no reasonable apprehension of arrest within Kerala (!) (!) .
The court clarified that the order of anticipatory bail would only be effective if the arrest occurs within Kerala (!) .
The court also observed that the proper legal procedures, including the form and issuance of warrants, must be followed, and that illegal or improperly issued warrants cannot justify arrest or detention (!) (!) .
In summary, the court granted anticipatory bail to the 6th accused based on her residence and the circumstances of the case, while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the first accused due to lack of reasonable apprehension of arrest within Kerala.
These petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (‘the Code’, for short), for anticipatory bail.
2. On a complaint filed by the representative of a Company, which is engaged in the business of trading and distribution of petrochemicals in India and overseas, a crime was registered against nine persons, alleging offences under Sections 65, 66, 66A, C and D of the Information Technology Act and Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short).
3. As per the allegations in the complaint, the company has a web-site in the name and style ‘www.jaypolychem.com’ but, another web site was set up in the internet by first accused (Samdeep Varghese @ Sam), who was dismissed from the company, as under the name and style ‘www.jayplychem.org’, in conspiracy with other accused, including one Preeti and Charanjeet Singh, who are the sister and brother-in-law of ‘Sam’ and defamatory and malicious matters about the company and its directors are made available in that website.
4. It is further alleged in the complaint that first accused’s sister and brother-in-law are based in Cochin and they have been acting in collusion and conspiracy with known and unknown persons, who have dishonestly and fraudulently cheated the company and committed acts of forgery, impersonation etc. In pursuance of the conspiracy, two of the accused (Amardeep Singh and Rahul) had visited Delhi and Cochin.
5. The complaint also reveals that first accused and other sent e-mails from fake e-mail accounts of many of the customers, suppliers, Bank etc. to malign the name and image of the Company and its Directors. It is further alleged thus: “The defamation campaign run by all the said persons named above has caused immense damage to the name and reputation of the Company. The Company has also suffered losses of several crores of Rupees for producers and suppliers, and customers were unable to do business”.
6. It is also alleged in the complaint thus: “Company has also learnt that Mr. Varghese, Mr. Amardeed Singh and other above referred persons in collusion with other known and unknown persons have impersonated different individuals, real or imaginary and have made and used forged electronic records, created false e-mail accounts to send information that they knew was false and grossly offensive to cause annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, injury etc., to the Company, its Directors, employees and other persons with the further malafide and deliberate intention of causing annoyance and inconvenience and deceive the addresses and recipients about the origin of such information/messages.”
7. There is also an allegation that first accused, in collusion with other accused “have been passing on and exchanging confidential information of the Company to each other and to third parties”. The further allegation is that first accused along with his sister and brother-in-law and one Rahul had financed a trip of one of the accused Amardeep and his wife to Cochin and Munnar although the Company was informed that he was going to Kulu-Manali for his honeymoon. Those persons parted with certain confidential information of the Company which resulted in great financial loss to the Company, besides loss of business and reputation.
8. The further allegation against the accused is this: “The said persons are withholding certain other information of confidential nature for which they are blackmailing the Company and its Directors and are seeking extortion money for not returning the confidential documents and material which they have unauthorisedly and illegally taken from the Company records of some of which was handed over to them or they had access to as employees of the Company.”
9. On the above allegations made in the First Information Statement, a crime was registered against first accused, his sister and brother-in-law and few others, at Rajpura city police station, in Punjab. According to respondents, later, it was reveal
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
