Allowed

Jose Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jul 2010Bail Appl./3795/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala entertained an application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, accused of cheating in a job scam case, approached the court seeking release. The court granted anticipatory bail on stringent conditions, allowing the petitioner to secure regular bail within the stipulated period.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions: execute bond for Rs. 25,000/-, surrender passport, not leave India without permission, cooperate with investigation. Order valid for 20 days.

Jose Thomas Vs State of Kerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3795 of 2010() --------------------------------CRIME NO. 761/2009 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶7

---------------------------

¶8

JOSE THOMAS, PARAVILAYIL, CHEMANGANADU.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶11

--------------------------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.HEMA, J.

¶16

B.A. No. 3795 of 2010

¶17

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2010

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶20

The alleged offence is under section 420 read with

¶21

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution,

¶22

Petitioner(A4) along with seven others, deceived de facto complainant and 250 others, by making false representation that they would obtain job abroad and also took Rs. 50,000/- from each of such persons. Thereafter, the job was not secured and the money was not returned, and thereby committed the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the allegations made against him, he is the Manager of Vydhyan Associates and in that capacity, he along with other persons took Rs.50,000/- each from defacto complainant and 250 other persons. According to petitioner, he had severed all connections with Vydhyan associates much prior to the filing of the complaint and he had not received any money from the defacto

¶24

B.A. No. 3795 / 2010 2

¶25

complainant or others. Annexure A1 to A3 will prove that he had severed connection with Vydhyan Associates. There are other documents also which show that he had started another business. Paper publication is produced to prove this. Petitioner is implicated in this case because he happened to be working in the Vydhyan Associates at some point of time.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that petitioner requested for an opportunity to explain his innocence to the investigating officer and this court directed him to appear before the investigating officer. He appeared and he was questioned by the investigating officer.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner reported before the investigating officer, as per the direction of this court and he was interrogated. He has no objection in granting anticipatory bail to petitioner on stringent conditions. It is also submitted that petitioner may be directed to surrender his passport, it is submitted.

¶28

On hearing both sides, considering the various facts and circumstances, I find that that anticipatory bail can be

¶29

B.A. No. 3795 / 2010 3

¶30

granted to petitioner on conditions. Hence, the following order is

¶31

passed:

¶32

Petitioner shall, in the event of his arrest be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the following conditions:

¶33

i). Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation.

¶34

ii). Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence.

¶35

iii). petitioner shall not leave India except with the prior permission of the Magistrate court concerned.

¶36

iv). Petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days and learned Magistrate may, if he deems it fit and proper, release the passport to him, if any application is filed for such purpose.

¶37

B.A. No. 3795 / 2010 4

¶38

This order will be in force only for a period of 20 days from today. In the meantime, petitioner shall seek regular bail from the court concerned, in accordance with law, whether he is arrested or not.

¶39

This petition is allowed.

¶40

K. HEMA, JUDGE

¶41

Jose Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Thomas 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

Sreerag Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Omana Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Prasad K.P.R. Vs State of Kerala

Saleena Vs State of Kerala

Jameskutty Jacob Vs State of Kerala