Partly allowed

Manmadha Panicker and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC16 Jun 2009Bail Appl./2811/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, accused under various cheating and forgery provisions, subject to conditions of reporting to the investigating officer, obtaining police consent, and surrendering for regular bail upon expiry of the bail period.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail for one month with a bond and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non-interference with prosecution, and surrender for regular bail.

Manmadha Panicker and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶3

Bail Appl..No. 2811 of 2009() --------------------------------------CMP.760/2009 of J.M.F.C.,THIRUVALLA CRIME NO.146/2009 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STAITON.

¶4

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2

¶5

¶6

MANMADHA PANICKER, THIRUVALLIYOOR VEEDU, PERUMTHURUTHY, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶7

M.D.PRASAD, KARIPPAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

N.VASU, PALLIYAKKAL HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶14

SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMR, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶17

B.A. No. 2811 of 2009

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2009

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.146/2009 of Thiruvalla Police Station.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under

¶22

Sections 120 B, 420 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act and Section 4 of the Prize Chits Money Circulation (Banning) Act.

¶23

The defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Thiruvalla, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, a crime was registered against the petitioners. The allegation made by the defacto complainant is that the petitioners who are the President and Secretary of the SNDP Yogam, Thiruvalla falsely represented that there is a trust called Sri.Sharatha trust and they are entitled to collect money from the public and conduct chits. Accordingly, the defacto complainant made monthly

¶24

B.A. No. 2811 / 2009

¶25

¶26

subscriptions. Later it was revealed that no such trust was registered and that the accused were not entitled to collect money. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was no chit as such and it was a common pooling by the members of the SNDP Yogam.

¶27

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail for a period of one month on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶28

A) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on all Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶29

B) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶30

C) The petitioners shall not try to influence the

¶31

B.A. No. 2811 / 2009

¶32

¶33

prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

D) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶35

E) On the expiry of the period mentioned above, the petitioners shall surrender before the Magistrate concerned and seek regular bail.

¶36

F) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶37

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶38

above.

¶39

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶40

scm

Manmadha Panicker and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manmadha Panicker and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

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

S.Abdul Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev.K.R Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Noushad and Another Vs State of Kerala

Saraswath Amma Vs State of Kerala

Babukuttan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Selvin Vs State of Kerala