Dismissed

Chulliyodan, Pattuvam Valappil v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC16 Oct 2008Bail Appl./4941/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application for anticipatory bail was disposed of. The court observed that the accused committed forgery while the complainant was abroad and required interrogation. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender before Investigating Officer within seven days and cooperate with investigation.

Chulliyodan, Pattuvam Valappil Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 4941 of 2008() ----------------------------CRIME NO. 206/2006 OF THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED -----------------------------------------CHULLIYODAN, PATTUVAM VALAPPIL SALEEM, S/O.ALI, AGED 42 YEARS, S.M.VILLA, KARIMBAM P.O., THALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE -------------------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALIPARAMBA POLICE STATION, (THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶2

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶3

K. HEMA, J.

¶4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 4941 of 2008

¶5

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16^th day of October,2008

¶6

O R D E R

¶7

Petition for anticipatory bail.

¶8

The alleged offences are under sections 419, 464, 465, 467 and 468 IPC. According to prosecution, 1^st accused personated himself as de facto complainant and all the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, purchased a vehicle in the name of de facto complainant on a higher purchase agreement by forging documents etc and thereafter, there were defaults in payment of the instalments and an arbitration award was also passed against de facto complainant. When execution proceedings were initiated, de facto complainant came to know about the commission of offences and he field a complaint against accused 1 to 5.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. De facto complainant himself had purchased the vehicle in his name and when the arbitration award was passed against him and execution proceedings were initiated, he wanted to wriggle out the liability and hence he filed a criminal complaint. This complaint was filed two years back in 2006 and no action was taken so far. Recently there is some dispute between the 1^st

¶10

BA 4941/08 -2-

¶11

accused and de facto complainant and hence police is attempting to arrest petitioner and harass him. Hence, this petition.

¶12

This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the hire purchase agreement was executed in the name of de facto complainant by the accused personating the 1^st accused as the de facto complainant, while de facto complainant was not even available in India. It is a clear case of forgery and petitioner is required for interrogation. It is true that in another crime of similar nature, the accused was granted anticipatory bail, but in that case de facto complainant was available in India during the transaction, and there was a long delay in lodging the complaint against that accused. The facts in this case are clearly distinguishable from other case and hence this petition is opposed.

¶13

On hearing both sides, it appears that the forgery was committed in the name of de facto complainant while he was abroad. The 1^st accused allegedly committed the forgery in collusion with others and several factors could be within his exclusive knowledge and he will be required for interrogation by the police. It is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The delay caused in arresting the petitioner is not a ground to allow this

¶14

BA 4941/08 -3-

¶15

petition. Though crime was registered as early as in 2006, petitioner is not arrested so far and hence the investigation could not have any progress.

¶16

Hence, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation. With this direction, this petition is dismissed.

¶17

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶18

mn.

Chulliyodan, Pattuvam Valappil v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chulliyodan, Pattuvam Valappil v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Karunan Vs Excise Inspector, Chittar Excise

Saji Vs the State of Kerala

Chulliyodan, Pattuvam Valappil Saleem Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ramachandran @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala