Allowed

Sasi Kumar v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2009Bail Appl./3391/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused shop manager under Section 438 CrPC, noting that a court-mandated reinstatement had already been ordered in related service proceedings concerning alleged account manipulation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including reporting to the IO and not influencing witnesses.

Sasi Kumar Vs the State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2009 / 14TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3391 of 2009

¶6

CRIME NO.233 OF 2009 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SASI KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANI, RESIDING AT MEKKATT, MADAKI VILLAGE, NILESHWAR, KASARAGOD DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.P.K.PRIYA

¶11

RESPONDENT: STATE

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.H.O. CHANDERA POLICE STATION.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶17

B.A. NO. 3391 OF 2009

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th August, 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 petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.233 of 2009 of Chandera Police Station, Kasaragod District.

¶21

The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 409, 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The petitioner was working as Shop Manager of Labham Market, Cheruvathur, run by the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation, at the relevant time. The allegation is that he along with the other accused persons manipulated the accounts and misappropriated amounts.

¶23

The petitioner was placed under suspension. He challenged the order of suspension in W.P.(C) No.20486 of 2009.

¶24

B.A. NO. 3391 OF 2009

¶25

:: 2 ::

¶26

The petitioner contended that the stock details available in the computer do not reveal the true state of affairs, that there were errors in the computer recordings and that the time expired goods and goods, the shelf life of which would expire shortly, were not taken into account while computing the actual stock available. As per the interim order dated 23.7.2009, this Court directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. The order dated 23.7.2009 reads as follows:

¶27

“Admit. Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned standing counsel takes notice for the respondents.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents on the question of grant of interim relief. On going through Ext.P3 and the statement therein that the stock referred to therein is excluding time expired goods, goods, the shelf life of which is to expire shortly and goods which are not fast moving, I am prima facie satisfied that there is no factual foundation for the reason given in Ext.P6 to place the petitioner under suspension. There will accordingly be an interim order directing the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in service. It will however be open to the respondents to post the petitioner in another station in the same district.”

¶29

B.A. NO. 3391 OF 2009

¶30

:: 3 ::

¶31

In the light of the interim order passed by this Court in the

¶32

Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on every alternate Sundays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶34

b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶35

c) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶36

d) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

¶37

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

¶38

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶39

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶40

ahz/

Sasi Kumar v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasi Kumar v. the 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

Basheer.P.P Vs State of Kerala

Sajikumar Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

M.Mahesh Vs the State of Kerala

A.Haja Vs State of Kerala

Raveendran @ Ravi Vs State of Kerala