Allowed

Sinimon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Oct 2011Bail Appl./5341/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court noted the petitioner had complied with a prior order to appear before the investigation officer. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including bond, reporting, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on execution of bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties for Rs. 10,000 each, subject to conditions of reporting, interrogation, and non-interference with prosecution.

Sinimon Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2011 / 21ST ASWINA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5341 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.811/2011 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION ....................

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED : --------------------------

¶7

SINUMON, S/O.SADASIVAN, PATTAMBIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): & STATE ---------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.811/2011 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT).

¶10

PUBLI PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶13

B.A.No.5341 of 2011

¶14

Dated this the 13th day of October, 2011

¶15

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.811 of 2011 of Thodupuzha Police Station.

¶16

The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 294A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(3) of the Lottery Regulation Act, 1998.

¶17

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 26.9.2011, the following order was passed :

¶18

“3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶19

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting

¶20

BA 5341/11

¶21

¶22

anticipatory bail, the petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 3rd and 4th October, 2011.

¶23

5. Post on 11th October, 2011.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.811 of 2011 of Thodupuzha Police Station, till 15th October, 2011.

¶25

The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any.

¶26

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶28

that the direction in the order dated 26.9.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶29

BA 5341/11

¶30

¶31

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 26.9.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶32

There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for ` 10,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions :

¶33

A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

BA 5341/11

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶41

above.

¶42

K.T.SANKARAN

¶43

JUDGE csl

BA 5341/11

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

B.A.No.5341 of 2011

Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

It is submitted that the FSL report has not been received so far. The hard disk of the computer kept in the shop was taken as per mahazar and it was sent to the FSL for scientific examination to ascertain whether on line lottery was being conducted in the shop in question. In the facts and circumstances, I think the case can be considered after the FSL report is received.

¶51

Post on 2nd September, 2011. There will be an interim direction not to arrest the petitioner in connection with Crime No.811 of 2011 of Thodupuzha Police Station, till 5th September, 2011.

BA 5341/11

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

csl

Hand over copy to both sides.

Sinimon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sinimon 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

Muthuraman Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf & Others Vs State of Kerala

Sreenath S.Nair Vs State of Kerala

K.Vijaya Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar K.N Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Vs State of Kerala