Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE5H DAY OF NOVEMBER201314TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 7282 of 2013 () ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 2461/2013 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION , TRISSUR -------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- UDAYAKUMAR, AGED61YEARS, S/O. LATE REGHUNATHA MALLAYYA, CHERTHEDATH HOUSE, RESIDING AT CHITHRA, V.K.N.MENON ROAD, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680008. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH V.S. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0511-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.No.7282 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2013 ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2461 of 2013 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, 420, 465, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the case is registered on a complaint given by the mother of the petitioner that forging signature of the defacto complainant in the cheque leaves which the defacto complainant had entrusted to the petitioner, the latter has withdrawn Rs. 50 lakhs from the Urban Co-operative Bank on two occasions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is aged about 83 years and is tool in the hand of Anil Kumar, another son of the defacto complainant and brother of the petitioner. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner had acquired much wealth. The petitioner and brothers along with the relatives started various partnership business including business in finance. Properties of the father were sold and the money was being deposited in B.A.No.7282 of 2013 2 various accounts of the mother. The mother used to give money to all the children and even wife of the petitioner on various dates. On all such occasions, the mother only signed the cheques and it was being written by the irrespective payees.
4. Learned counsel has produced relevant pages of the Bank account to show that on 17-06-2008, Rs.60 lakhs was given by the mother to Anil Kumar while on 18-08-2008, another sum of Rs.19 lakhs given to another brother of the petitioner. It is also pointed out from Annexure-8 that on 13-03-2008 one Jayakumar, another brother have received Rs. 5 lakhs, while wife of the petitioner also was given a similar amount. Anil Kumar also got Rs. 5 lakhs. On 18-06- 2008, Rs. 41 lakhs each were given to the petitioner and Jayakumar. Annexure-2 is produced show that there was disputes between the partners concerning the partnership business. Annexure-3 is the reply given by some of the partners to the notice issued by the petitioner. Petitioner has given Annexure-4 additional reply. It is submitted that some of the brothers of the petitioner has forced the mother to B.A.No.7282 of 2013 3 prefer a false complaint in view of Annexure-5.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the relevant documents are already given to the investigating officer who has obtained around 30 specimen signatures of the petitioner. It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that C.D file does not show that any such documents were given or specimen signature obtained by the investigating officer.
7. Having heard the learned counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am inclined to think that the petitioner has to be interrogated by the investigating officer. If not already given, it is open to the petitioner to give the relevant documents also to the investigating officer for his consideration. In the circumstances, following directions are issued. a) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.2461 of 2013 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station on 11-11-2013 at 10 a.m for interrogation. B.A.No.7282 of 2013 4 b) If interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, she shall appear before the officer investigating the case on the day/days and time directed by her which the petitioner shall comply. c) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. d) It is open to the petitioner to produce all the documents which he considers is relevant in the matter before the investigating officer which I am sure, the investigating officer will take into account, if found relevant. e) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. f) It is open to the petitioner to move application for bail before the learned magistrate on such production. g) Intimation of intention to move application for bail shall be given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned at least three working days in advance so that he will be equipped with the facts of the case. h) If custody of the petitioner required, it is open to B.A.No.7282 of 2013 5 the officer concerned to move application before the learned magistrate. i) Learned magistrate shall dispose of the application(s) as early as possible having regard to the contentions of the petitioner also and based what emerges from the interrogation of the petitioner as well, as early as possible. Application is disposed of with the above directions. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE AS