Allowed

G.Shreekumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Apr 2008Bail Appl./2000/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail to the first accused, alleging fraudulent transfer of funds from an NRI account. Relying on the return of funds and lack of opposition, the Court granted bail subject to surrender, ensuring interrogation, and executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioner to surrender, execute bond of Rs.1,00,000 with sureties, and make himself available for interrogation.

G.Shreekumar Vs the State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2000 of 2008() ----------------------------CR.NO.304/08 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1

¶7

¶8

G. SHREEKUMAR, MANAGER, SBI, KOCHI 2/CJM CRESCENT, P.J.ANTONY ROAD, MAMANGALAM EDAPPALLY, COCHIN-24

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SRI.ABHILASH BHASKAR SRI.BINU JOHN

¶10

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶11

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION (THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF HONORABLE KERALA HIGH COURT ERNAKULAM)

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

R. BASANT, J.

¶16

Dated this the 9th day of April, 2008

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the first accused. He is the Manager of the State Bank of India. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he had fraudulently taken money from the account of an NRI account holder and had transferred the same to the account of another i.e. the second accused. A total amount of Rs.23 lakhs was allegedly so transferred on three days – 30.8.06, 27.9.06 and 23.12.2006. (Rs. 10 lakhs + 6 lakhs + 7 lakhs respectively). It is the allegation of the police that these amounts have been fraudulently siphoned out of the account of the account holder by the petitioner contrary to the rules of the Bank. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶20

petitioner is absolutely innocent. Even going by the case of the defacto complainant he had instructed the petitioner to take such

¶21

B.A.No. 2000 of 2008

¶22

¶23

amount from his account and credit the same to the account of the second accused. A letter under registered post has been sent to the bank's superior officers by the defacto complainant informing them that it was under his instruction that the total amount of Rs. 23 lakhs was transferred to the account of the second accused.

¶24

The learned Prosecutor was directed to take further instructions. After taking further instructions, the learned Prosecutor confirms that such a letter has been received by the bank's superior officers subsequent to the initiation of the proceedings, from the defacto complainant. The account holder has not been questioned yet. That communication has been received through post only. At any rate, the learned Prosecutor confirms that the entire amount taken out from the account of the account holder has now been placed back in the account and the defacto complainant has not raised any grievance.

¶25

In these circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner prays, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, subject to appropriate terms and conditions. In the absence of opposition it is

¶26

B.A.No. 2000 of 2008

¶27

¶28

not necessary for me to advert to facts in any greater detail in this order.

¶29

In the result:

¶30

(1) This application is allowed.

¶31

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶32

(a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 16.4.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶33

(b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 17.4.2008 and 18.4.2008 and thereafter as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶34

(c) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse

¶35

B.A.No. 2000 of 2008

¶36

¶37

on 16.4.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law.

¶38

(d) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 16.4.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- without any surety

¶39

undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 16.4.2008.

¶40

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶41

G.Shreekumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Shreekumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Manaf Vs S.I. of Police

Saji and Others Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan Bhanu Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Aby M.Abraham Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Lathika M.V. Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs S.I. of Police, Pulpally and Another