Dismissed

P.M.Hassankutty v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC8 Jan 2008Crl.MC/75/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that being an accused in four separate cases under Section 138 NI Act does not justify directing a deposit in each case. Consequently, the bail condition to deposit Rs. 10,000 per case was deleted, and any money already deposited was ordered to be refunded.

What did the court decide?

Deleted the bail condition requiring deposit of Rs. 10,000 in each of the four cases; ordered refund of money deposited.

P.M.Hassankutty Vs State of Kerala and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2008 / 18TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 75 of 2008()

¶6

----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 2456/07, 2457/07, 2458/07 IN ST.NOS.280/2005, 5549/04, 379/05 & 5011/04 of THE J.F.C.M-II, PARAPPANANGADI .

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED:

¶8

¶9

P.M.HASSANKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O MEERAN RAWTHER, PARAPPIL HOUSE P.O., KUMMANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

SMT.RUBY K.JOSE

RESPONDENTS:

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

¶15

CHOYUNNI ULLERI, S/O KUNHATHU, PUTHALATHAZHATHU VEEDU, THAYYILAPPADI, P.O.ULLANAM.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.75 of 2008

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2008

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner who is the common accused in S.T.Nos.5011/2007, 5549/04, 280/2005 & 379/05 respectively before the J.F.C.M- II, Parappanangadi for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving four different cheques for different amounts, challenges the orders dated 24.11.07 passed by the learned Magistrate in each of the cases directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- under Section 445 Cr.P.C. The orders were passed at the instance of the 2^nd respondentcomplainant.

¶23

Just because the petitioner is an accused in four different cases, that is not a circumstance justifying the direction to deposit Rs.10,000/- in each of the cases as a condition for executing the bail bond. Accordingly, the said condition will stand deleted in each of the four cases. Money, if any, deposited before the court below pursuant to the impugned orders shall be refunded to the petitioner.

¶24

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶25

P.M.Hassankutty v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Hassankutty v. State of Kerala and 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

Ramarajan Vs State of Kerala

S.Ramesh Vs v.Ramachandran

Harikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Cherian T.John Vs Excise Inspector

Sunilkumar @ Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Usman Vs the Sub Inspector of Police