Shabeen Perumpadi Mohammedali vs State Of Kerala

K. Haripal, J

Accused Nos.5 and 6 in crime No.998/2019 of Valapattanam police station in Kannur district have moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail. That

crime was registered on a complaint moved by the Manager, State Bank of India, Puthiyatheru branch, Kannur before the Police Inspector,

Valapattanam, alleging offence under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Petitioners are partners of the 4th accused dealer

namely, Ali Sons Vehicles and Services Pvt. Ltd., Kozhikode. According to them, accused Nos.1 and 2, who were partners of the third accused, had

availed a loan of Rs.36 lakhs from the bank for purchasing a Ford Endeavour car. After perusing the records presented by them the loan was

sanctioned and the amount was released in favour of the 4th accused in which the petitioners are partners. It is alleged that though the amount was

availed from the bank and pretended that the vehicle was already taken delivery, in fact the vehicle was not purchased. However, accused Nos.1 and

2 started remitting the EMI, despite the fact that the vehicle was not taken delivery. When the Manager of the bank insisted, a covering note and an

invoice were sent from the 4th accused firm in which the petitioners are partners. On enquiry it came out that such a vehicle was not actually taken

delivery and the bank was being cheated.

I heard the learned counsel on both sides.

According to the petitioners, they are innocent that they have not committed any offence, they did not have any role in the day-to-day affairs of the

4th accused company, that the loan was passed in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2, who have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by

Annexure-2 order. Even if the allegations are true, that will not constitute an offence, that their custodial interrogation is not necessary. Thus the

learned counsel pressed for granting bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application.

I have also perused the Case Diary made available by the learned Public Prosecutor. After going through the Case Diary, I am not convinced that

the petitioners are entitled to get an order in their favour. It is true that the application for loan was made by accused Nos.1 and 2 in whose favour a

loan for Rs.36 lakhs was sanctioned by the defacto complainant bank. Later, in connivance with accused Nos.4 to 6 the bank was made to believe

that the vehicle was already taken delivery; accused Nos.1 and 2 have even made certain monthly remissions; still necessary documents were not

furnished to the bank. On insistence an invoice dated 30.06.2019 and an insurance covering note dated 04.06.2019 were sent by e-mail to the bank.

Still, original documents were not furnished to the bank. The Case Diary contains details of the covering note and the invoice. But the fact remains

that such a vehicle had never been supplied to accused Nos.1 and 2. To put it in other words, documents have been created in respect of a non-

existing vehicle showing that it was delivered to accused Nos.1 and 2 and also showing that it had insurance coverage. The contention of the learned

counsel that accused Nos.1 and 2 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court does not impel me to grant such a relief to the petitioners. They have

committed fraud on the defacto complainant, certainly, in connivance with the other accused persons. In other words, they have not come with clean

hands. Such persons cannot seek discretionary relief from this Court.

Moreover, in the nature of the allegations, the petitioners cannot wash off their hands showing that they were not aware of the day-to-day affairs of

their own partnership firm. The invoice and the covering note allegedly sent by them have to be traced for which custodial interrogation is necessary.

The application is dismissed.