Allowed

Sasikala v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr.

Kerala HC7 Aug 2009Bail Appl./3814/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the 5th accused under Section 438 CrPC in a cheating case involving property transactions linked to a bank loan mortgage, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of Rs.15,000/- and two sureties, with conditions to appear for interrogation, not influence witnesses, and commit no offences.

Sasikala Vs Sub Inspector of Police & Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3814 of 2009

¶6

CRIME NO.306 OF 2009 OF MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

SASIKALA, HARIBHAVANAM, EREZHA THEKKU,

¶10

MAVELIKARA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT

¶13

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVELIKARA POLICE STATION.

¶15

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

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶19

B.A. NO. 3814 OF 2009

¶20

Dated this the 7^th August, 2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.306 of 2009 of Mavelikara Police Station.

¶23

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The crime was registered on the basis of a petition filed by the Secretary of the Mavelikkara Primary Co-operative Agricultural Development Bank. It is stated that the first accused, Appukuttan Nair, availed a loan from the Bank mortgaging his properties in the year 1997. The second accused is the wife of the first accused and she was shown as a nominee in the loan account. It is stated that Appukuttan Nair sold the mortgaged property to Shylaja Kumari, the third accused, in the year 2000. Shylaja Kumari sold the property to the fourth accused, Subramanian Mamboodiri, in the same year. In 2004, Subramanian Namboodiri sold the property to the fifth accused, who is the petitioner herein.

¶25

B.A. NO. 3814 OF 2009

¶26

:: 2 ::

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the persons who are aggrieved are the assignees from Appukuttan Nair and the Bank cannot be an aggrieved party. It is stated that when a mortgaged property is sold by the mortgagor, the subsequent assignees would take the property subject to the mortgage. He stated that no question of cheating would arise in the case and if at all anybody is cheated, it is the petitioner and the prior transferees of the first accused. For the purpose of disposal of this Bail Application, it is not necessary to arrive at a finding on these aspects.

¶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 officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶29

B.A. NO. 3814 OF 2009

¶30

:: 3 ::

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶36

ahz/

¶37

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

Sasikala v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikala v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr.

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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

T.J.Rinil Rolence Vs the State of Kerala

Rajendran @ Gas Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Musthafa and Others Vs State of Kerala

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

Premadas Vs State of Kerala