Dismissed

K.a.Razick v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jan 2008Bail Appl./402/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail by recording the Public Prosecutor's undertaking that arrest would not occur without prior notice and court permission. The court held the petitioner's apprehension was at present without basis.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed after accepting the undertaking of the Public Prosecutor for notice and permission before arrest.

K.a.Razick Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JANUARY 2008 / 10TH MAGHA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 402 of 2008()

¶6

---------------------------(CRIME 388/06 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION ) CRIME NO.332/II/06 OF CBCID SIG II OF CRIME BRANCH

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

K.A.RAZICK, AGED 40 YEARS, D-1 J.K.ROYAL HOUSE, CHAMMANI ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.) SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV.SRI.S.U.NAZER

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

R. BASANT, J.

¶17

¶18

B.A. No. 402 OF 2008 E

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2008

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner is the sole accused shown in the FIR. An amount of Rs.6 lakhs - six bundles each of Rs.1,000/- denomination containing 100 notes, was received by a Bank to be remitted into the account of the petitioner's firm on 29.6.06. The amount was taken to the Bank by the Manager-cum-Accountant of the petitioner's firm. 74 out of those 600 currency notes were found to be counterfeit currency notes by the Bank. On the complaint lodged by the Bank, the crime was registered. As the petitioner was the one who sent the Manager-cum-Accountant of the petitioner's firm to the Bank, he was shown as accused. Investigation commenced. The investigator, in the course of investigation, came to know that the amount came out of amounts received by the petitioner's firm from a finance

¶23

BA.No.402/08

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

establishment. That finance establishment in turn claimed to have received the said amount from another finance establishment. Investigation has been continuing from June 2006. The precise source of the counterfeit currency notes has, unfortunately, not been traced so far. Investigation is in progress. Though the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused, the investigating officer who is not convinced of the contumacious involvement of the petitioner, has not so far arrested him. But the petitioner is under the constant threat of arrest. He has therefore, come to this Court with a prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused, the investigating officer is not yet convinced about the contumacious role, if any, of the petitioner in the possession of the counterfeit currency notes. The possibility that it was innocent possession looms large and the investigating officer is not able to rule out the possibility. In as much as

¶27

BA.No.402/08

¶28

: 3 :

¶29

his conscience is satisfied about the culpable involvement of the petitioner, the investigating officer has refrained from arresting the petitioner so far. He has been interrogated on a number of occasions by the investigating officer.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor, in these circumstances, submits that it is unfair to compel the investigating officer to arrest the petitioner or even to insist that the petitioner has to seek regular or anticipatory bail. The final outcome of investigation cannot be predicted now. The possibility of the investigator wanting to arrest the petitioner on a later date cannot of course be completely ruled out now. At the moment, with the available inputs, the investigating officer does not want to arrest the petitioner.

¶31

After having discussed the matter at the Bar, I am satisfied that appropriate directions to safeguard the interests of the petitioner can be issued under section 438 Cr.P.C. The learned Public Prosecutor undertakes that the petitioner shall not be arrested and if on a later date, the investigating officer

¶32

BA.No.402/08

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

realises the need to arrest the petitioner, sufficient prior notice shall be given to the petitioner and the prior permission of this Court shall be obtained before effecting such arrest.

¶35

To me, that submission of the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be absolutely fair and just. I am satisfied that the said submission of the learned Public Prosecutor can be recorded and accepted and this petition can be dismissed observing that the apprehension of the petitioner at present that he shall be arrested is without any basis. This petition is accordingly dismissed after accepting the submissions/undertaking of the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶37

aks

K.a.Razick v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Razick v. 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

Sandeep A.V. Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public

Nainook C. Vs State of Kerala

Sudhi Vs State of Kerala

Suneer Vs State of Kerala

Muthu and Others Vs State and Another

Rajesh K.V. Vs State of Kerala & Another