A bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as petitions faced allegations of cheque misappropriation and forgery in a bank. The court held it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to seek regular bail before the Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2007 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1929
Bail Appl..No. 7084 of 2007()
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
A.V.SUNIL KUMAR, ARUMAKATTUKUDI HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY.
BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2007, THE COURT ON 07/12/2007 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R. BASANT, J.
B.A. No. 7084 OF 2007 A ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2007
O R D E R
Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner
faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. The petitioner is a Peon in a Nationalized Bank. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner committed acts of misappropriation, forgery, etc. in respect of cheques received in the bank from other banks. The petitioner had allegedly taken such cheques to the other banks. He had forged the signature of the Assistant Manager. He had collected amounts from such banks and had not brought such amounts into the accounts of his bank. This is the allegation against the petitioner.
BA.7084/07
: 2 :
not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.
BA.7084/07
: 3 :
discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. This, I agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the normal and ordinary course.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
aks
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is warranted in a case involving unauthorized possession of bank cheques and forgery.
Whether the allegations of misappropriation and forgery against a bank peon constitute a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
A.V.SUNIL KUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
R.BASANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
