Allowed

Abraham George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2009Bail Appl./3534/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the first accused involving offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court imposed conditions including appearance before the investigating officer, non-interference with witnesses, and repaying of alleged loans without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and conditions regarding appearance, non-tampering, and no new offences.

Abraham George Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3534 of 2009

¶6

CRIME NO.194/CR/3KM/07, EARLIER CRIME NO.249 OF 2007 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.1: --------------------

¶8

ABRAHAM GEORGE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S. NU AGE RECOURSES AND PLACEMENTS PVT LTD., 43/2094-C, SRM ROAD, PACHALAM (PO). BY ADV. SRI.SATHISH NINAN SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.P.K.VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶15

B.A. NO. 3534 OF 2009

¶16

Dated this the 10^th August, 2009

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.194/CR/EKM/07, which was registered earlier as Crime No.249 of 2007 of Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode District.

¶19

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 27.7.2009, the following order was passed:

¶21

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disputes have been settled between the petitioner and de facto complainant. It is submitted that the de facto complainant has filed a statement before police indicating the same. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted, to consider the further course of action in the matter, the petitioner has to appear before the investigating officer.

¶22

B.A. NO. 3534 OF 2009

¶23

:: 2 ::

¶24

The petitioner submitted that he will appear before the investigating officer on 5^th August 2009.

¶25

Post on 10.8.2009.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested till 10.08.2009.”

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer on 5.8.2009. It is also submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the loans which were allegedly taken by the petitioner from the Bank on behalf of several other persons without their knowledge have been repaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure II letter issued by ING Vysya Bank in this regard.

¶28

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 petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the

¶29

B.A. NO. 3534 OF 2009

¶30

:: 3 ::

¶31

officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶37

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶38

ahz/

Abraham George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abraham George v. 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

Musthafa and Others Vs State of Kerala

Vimal.N.K. Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sasikala Vs Sub Inspector of Police & Anr.

Thomas @ Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala

Nazeer Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kalam Vs S.I.of Police