Allowed

Satheeshkumar v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC11 Mar 2008Bail Appl./916/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a false charges case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust, imposing conditions for surrender, interrogation, and appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner directed to surrender before Magistrate on 17.3.2008, provide Indian Rupees fifty thousand bond with sureties, and appear for interrogation on specified dates.

Satheeshkumar Vs State of Kerala & Another — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 916 of 2008()

¶6

---------------------------CRIME NO. 42/08 OF KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION

¶7

CRIME.42/2008 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED

¶9

¶10

SATHEESHKUMAR, THALAPURETH RAGHULEYAM, KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SMT.KAVITHA GANGADHARAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAYAMKULAM POLICE STATION, KAYAMKULAM.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

R. BASANT, J.

¶19

- - - - B.A.No. 916 of 2008

¶20

¶21

Dated this the 11th day of March, 2008

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the first

¶24

accused. He is employed as a Village Extension Officer. Crime has been registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the Block Development Officer. The petitioner faces allegations in that crime registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 408 I.P.C.

¶25

There was a scheme for financial assistance to members

¶26

of the SC/ST community. They were given aid for filling up their plots to avoid water logging. Two persons, Veluthakunju and Madhavan, were the beneficiaries under the scheme. Cheques were handed over to the petitioner for distribution to the beneficiaries. The proceeds of the cheques were not released to the beneficiaries concerned. Crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

¶27

¶28

B.A.No. 916 of 2008

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶30

petitioner is innocent. The amounts have admittedly been received by the beneficiaries now. One of the beneficiary admitted that the amount was taken by his nephew and the other beneficiary has also admitted that the amount has been received by him. In any view of the matter, the petitioner does not deserve to endure the trauma of arrest and detention. He may be granted anticipatory bail, it is prayed.

¶31

The learned Prosecutor does not oppose the application. He submits that appropriate conditions may be imposed in the interests of a fair and efficient investigation.

¶32

Having considered all the relevant inputs, I am satisfied that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner, subject to appropriate terms and conditions.

¶33

In the result:

¶34

(1) This application is allowed.

¶35

(2) The following directions are issued under Section 438

Cr.P.C.

B.A.No. 916 of 2008

(a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 17.3.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

¶40

(b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. on 18.3.2008 and 19.3.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter he shall appear before the Investigating Officer and on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so.

¶41

(c) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 17.3.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law.

¶42

B.A.No. 916 of 2008

¶43

¶44

(d) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on

¶45

17.3.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail

¶46

on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 17.3.2008.

¶47

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶48

Satheeshkumar v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheeshkumar v. State of Kerala & Another

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

K.B.Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Suresh Vs D.I. of Police

Amu @ Leipy @ Niyas Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Vs State of Kerala & Others

Chacko Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Ahammed Kunju Vs Sub Inspector of Police