Manoj T Paul vs State Of Kerala

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

The petitioner herein is the 7th accused in Crime No.2335 of 2016 of Aluva East Police Station, registered under Sections 406, 420, 109 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC.

In the aforesaid crime, which is seen registered on 27.06.2016, the only person who was arrayed as the accused was the President of the Thirukochi Rural Agricultural Production and Marketing Co-operative Society E-179. It is alleged by the de facto complainant that he was approached by the accused and was induced to believe that he would be made the Vice President of the Society, if he invested a sum of Rs.15 lakhs. He was also assured with a profit share from the business. A total sum of Rs.12 lakhs was handed over to the 1st accused. When the accused failed to honour his assurance, information was furnished and the crime was registered. Investigation revealed that the functioning of the Society was against the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. The accounts were not being properly maintained. Huge sums were accepted by the President from numerous persons assuring that jobs would be provided. It appears that thereafter a report was submitted before Court on 21.07.2016 arraying the petitioner herein and 14 others as accused.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein had contested in the election to the Managing Committee of the Society pursuant to a notification issued by the Registrar on 10.08.2016. Referring to Annexure-II order in WP(C) No.23786/2015 which is dated 10.08.2016, it is submitted that the former members of the Society had challenged the election process and it was undertaken by the Government Pleader concerned that the election would be postponed. Ignoring the said undertaking, the election was conducted by the 1st accused. Contempt proceedings were initiated as Cont Case (Civil) No.1489/2015, consequent to which, it was decided to cancel the election of the office bearers. In short, the contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner or the other members, who were elected along with him, did not assume charge of their office. The learned counsel would further submit that the accused Nos.6, 8, 9 and 11 had approached this Court and after taking note of the statement of the investigating officer, were granted an order of pre-arrest bail by order dated 16.02.2018 in BA No.8915/2017.

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well. While granting an order of pre-arrest bail to accused Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11, it was observed in paragraph No. 5 of the order as follows:

"The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to file a statement pin pointing the exact role of the petitioners herein and the materials collected as on date showing their involvement. As directed, a report has been submitted before Court. All that is mentioned in the report is that the petitioners herein were also aware of the acts committed by the 1st accused. As to how and in what manner is not mentioned in the statement. There is also no reference to the materials linking the petitioners with the crime. Furthermore, in the said report, it is stated that accused Nos. 2, 3, 8 and 10 have been granted bail by this Court. The petitioners herein stand in the same footing as that of the above accused."

Insofar as the petitioner herein is concerned, it appears that he also stands with the same footing as accused Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 11. In that view of the matter, I find no reason to refuse the prayer sought for.

In the result, this petition will stand allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions:

i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

ii). The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

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.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.