Arun Sagar vs State of Kerala

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No. 570 of 2014 of the Mananthavady Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the first accused who is father of the petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 25 lakhs on the security of gold ornaments from M/s. Muthoot Finance, Mananthavady branch. Later, he sought financial assistance from the State Bank of Travancore, Mananthavady branch to redeem the pledge. Accordingly cheque of Rs. 25 lakhs was given to the first accused. Instead of depositing the amount with the State Bank of Travancore, Mananthavady branch, he managed to transfer the amount to his account with the Federal Bank, Nedumbassery branch. The same day, Rs. 14 lakhs was withdrawn by the petitioner and the second accused (son and wife of the first accused). According to the prosecution and the additional second respondent, the said withdrawal was in furtherance of common intention the petitioner and other accused had. It is submitted that the first accused is involved in several cases of this nature.

Learned counsel for the additional second respondent submits that the petitioner also is involved in at least one another case of similar character.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the second respondent, Manager of M/s. Muthoot Finance, is responsible for the whole incident and now he has assumed character of de facto complainant. It is submitted that version of the additional second respondent that in spite of three employees of his bank being send along with first accused for transfer of the amount to the State Bank of Travancore, Mananthavady branch, the first accused managed to transfer the amount to the Federal Bank, Nedumbassery branch is quite unbelievable. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has any complicity in the alleged incident. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing wrong in the petitioner withdrawing the amount from the account of his father (first accused) as instructed by the latter.

It is not as if the de facto complainant must have been aware of whatever that transpired between the petitioner and other accused. Fact remains that the petitioner had withdrawn certain amount which was deposited by the first accused with the Federal Bank, Nedumbassery branch. In what circumstances it was, is a matter which is required to be investigated. I am inclined to think that grant of pre-arrest bail would affect investigation of the case.

Application is dismissed. It is directed that in case the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate as early as possible.