SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Online)(KER) 17892

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
N.SWAMINATHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./6696/2017



Advocates:
SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

Accused can secure anticipatory bail if actions were taken based on legal advice and proper organisational processes, indicating a lack of criminal intent.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 438 - This Section governs the provision for anticipatory bail, allowing the accused to seek bail before arrest.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, as the Secretary of a bank, approved a loan based on a legal advisor's report certifying the security was valid; after default, the bank discovered the property was Puramboke land, leading to criminal charges.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the petitioner had acted based on a legal opinion and the concurrence of the managing committee, establishing a prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail given the serious charges and the role played in the loan disbursement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that actions taken with reliance on a clear legal opinion and managing committee approval could justify anticipatory bail, as the petitioner had not acted with malice or criminal intent.

Final Decision: Application for anticipatory bail allowed with specific conditions.

ORDER

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2.The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1127 of

2017 of Vadakkencherry Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 408, 409, 417, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468 and 120B read with 34 of the IPC.

3.The petitioner is the Secretary of the Vadakkencherry Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.No.F1219. The 1st accused in the aforesaid crime applied for a loan for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from the said society in the year 2011. She produced security in the form of landed property belonging to her. Along with the application for loan she also produced tax receipts, possession certificates and other documents before the petitioner herein. As is the procedure, the petitioner forwarded the application to the legal advisor for scrutiny. The documents produced by the BA 6696/2017 2

1st accused was scrutinized and report was submitted before the petitioner herein. The legal advisor opined that the 1st accused had clear, absolute and marketable title over the property. The said report as well as the application was produced before the Managing Committee and after obtaining the necessary concurrence, the loan amount was disbursed.

4.Later, when the 1st accused defaulted in repayment of the loan, the bank initiated proceedings and obtained an Award and steps were initiated for executing the same. At that stage, it was revealed that the property on the strength of which loan was disbursed was Puramboke land. When this fact was realised, the bank filed a complaint based on which the aforesaid crime was registered.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had rendered more than 32 years of service in the bank and had retired in the year 2012. The opinion of the legal advisor was placed before the managing committee and it was after obtaining their concurrence that the loan amount was disbursed. The petitioner is innocent according to the learned counsel and if she is put behind bars, she would be BA 6696/2017 3 subjected to humiliation and ignominy.

6.The learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the prayer submitted that the investigation is in the early stages the exact role played by the petitioner can only be ascertained after a detailed investigation.

7.When the matter was taken up on previous occasion this Court had directed the learned Public Prosecutor to produce the scrutiny report furnished by the legal advisor based on which the managing committee had given consent to the petitioner to disburse the loan. The report has been placed before me and I have perused the same. The opinion of the legal advisor in the report is that the 1st accused had clear absolute and marketable title over the property. In that view of the matter, it appears that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of pre-arrest bail.

8.In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

i) It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner/the 3rd accused in connection with the Crime No.127 of 2017 of Vadakkencherry Police station, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only)

BA 6696/2017 4 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest.

ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. He shall thereafter appear as and when directed.

iii) The petitioner 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/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

iv) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

vi) If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be appl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top