Dismissed

K.Ratnakumar v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC8 Jun 2010Bail Appl./1904/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Kerala High Court rejected the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner charged with Section 489A IPC. The court held that interrogation was necessary for an effective investigation into the supply of fake currency notes.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender and co-operate with investigation.

K.Ratnakumar Vs State of Kerala and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1904 of 2010()

¶6

----------------------------(CBCID CRIME NO.13/CR/SII 09 OF KALOOR POLICE STATION, COCHIN

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3

¶8

¶9

K.RATNAKUMAR, S/O. R.KRISHNAKURTHY, AGED 26 YEARS, 22/4 NEW COLONY, JANAKI NAGAR, NEAR MURUKANTIKOYIL S.H.S.COLOY, MADURAI-10, TAMIL NADU.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CDCID DETCTIVE INSPECTOR, WING II, CBCID KALOOR.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI-31.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S BREEZ

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.HEMA, J

¶18

B.A No.1904 OF 2010

¶19

Dated this the 8^th day of June 2010

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶22

The alleged offence is under Section 489 A of IPC. According to prosecution, accused No.1 to 3 were arrested on getting secret information that they were dealing with fake currency notes. The contraband currency notes were seized from the possession of accused No.1 and 2. On investigation it was revealed that petitioner had supplied the same to first accused and therefore he was also implicated as fourth accused.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not involved in the offence. He is innocent of the allegations made. He is prepared to co-operate with investigation.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the Case Diary, petitioner is the person who had supplied the fake currency notes. The incident happened as early as on 15/03/2010, but petitioner was not available for investigation.

¶25

On hearing both sides and on considering the serious nature of the allegations made against petitioner, I am satisfied that interrogation of petitioner is required for the purpose of an

¶26

B.A No.1904 OF 2010

¶27

¶28

effective investigation in a case of this nature. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶29

Petition is dismissed.

¶30

K.HEMA JUDGE

¶31

vdv

K.Ratnakumar v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ratnakumar 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

Karthik Vs State of Kerala

Jalaludeen Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

K.Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

Faseela Vs State of Kerala