Allowed

K.a.George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2010Bail Appl./1978/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, Justice K.HEMA granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges under IPC Sections 379, 415, 420, 463, and 465. The court found the underlying dispute to be civil in nature, involving theft allegations and forgery related to a property title deed and business joint venture between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail, ordered to surrender before the Investigating Officer within seven days and cooperate with investigation upon arrest.

K.a.George Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 1978 of 2010() ----------------------------CRIME NO.264/10 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶5

(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------

¶6

K.A.GEORGE, AGED 67, S/O.LATE A.G.ABRAHAM, ATTASSERIL KALLUMKAL HOUSE, VARAYANNOOR P.O., PULLAD, KERALA.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶9

THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ.

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

K.HEMA, J.

¶13

---------------------------------------------Bail Application No.1978 of 2010

¶14

Dated 9^th June, 2010.

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶17

The alleged offences are under Sections 379, 415, 420, 463 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner committed theft of a title deed, by which defacto complainant purchased a property. He had forged an I.D. card by using the address of the office of defacto complainant.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and defacto complainant were conducting a business and they were using a common office room. The title deed allegedly stolen is in respect of purchase of the said office room. There were civil suits between the parties. Petitioner filed a suit for realisation of about Rs.10 lakhs from defacto complainant. In the said suit, the alleged stolen document was produced by petitioner. A decree was passed ex parte. Later, the defacto complainant filed a petition for setting aside the ex parte decree and there was also direction to furnish bank guarantee. It was allowed on payment of costs etc.

¶19

BA NO.1978/10

¶20

¶21

The defacto complainant challenged the order

¶22

setting aside ex parte decree before this Court since bank guarantee was insisted upon. In the said proceedings, defacto complainant contended that the document, which is now alleged to be stolen was sufficient guarantee and he sought for an order to lift the bank guarantee. It is also pointed out that both sides were using the name of the office in the I.D. card but, the allegation is that I.D. Card is forged by using the name of the company etc. Petitioner is working abroad and he has come to India now. It is at this juncture that defacto complainant filed a frivolous complaint and it is done only with a view to harass petitioner, it is submitted.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the dispute between parties appears to be a civil dispute. On hearing both sides and considering the various facts pointed out and the documents produced along with the petition relating to civil suits, etc., and the circumstances under which a criminal case is instituted, I am satisfied anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioner. Hence, the following order is passed :

¶24

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating

¶25

BA NO.1978/10

¶26

¶27

Officer within seven days from today and co-operate with the investigation.

¶28

(ii) Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest, be released on bail, on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that he will co-operate with the investigation.

¶29

Petition is allowed.

¶30

K.HEMA, JUDGE.

¶31

tgs

K.a.George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.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

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

K.Ratnakumar Vs State of Kerala and Another

K.Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Santhamma Vs S.I. of Police Koipuram Police Station

Ninan K.Jacob Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Suseela Vs State of Kerala