Allowed

Thulasy T.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Aug 2011Bail Appl./6024/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused No.2 in a cheating case, after he complied with an earlier direction to appear before the investigating officer. Relief was subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to appearance before investigating officer, non-influence of witnesses, and compliance with police station conditions.

Thulasy T.S. 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 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6024 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.610/2011 OF MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶6

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

THULASY.T.S, W/O.SADAN, AGED 39 YEARS, NILAVAZHETH HOUSE, ASHTAMICHIRA P.O., THRISSUR-680 731.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.K.S.SANGEETHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 031.

¶13

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶14

MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR, PIN 680 732.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A.No.6024 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.610 of 2011 of Mala Police Station, Thrissur District.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with the other accused started a 'Kuri' in the name of Ambedkar Trust at Mala and collected ` 50/- per day for 360 days from the de facto complainant and others with promise that the amount together with profit would be repaid after the expiry of the date. The allegation is that on maturity, the amount was not paid.

¶23

BA 6024/2011

¶24

¶25

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 1.8.2011, the following order was passed :

¶26

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

¶27

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offences, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting 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 8.8.2011 and 9.8.2011.

¶28

Post on 11.8.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.610 of 2011 of Mala Police Station, till 15.8.2011.

¶29

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

¶30

BA 6024/2011

¶31

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 1.8.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶33

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 1.8.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶34

There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release her on bail on her 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 :

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

BA 6024/2011

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

csl

Thulasy T.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thulasy T.S. 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

Jayan Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Anu K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Febin and Others Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Mohan and Another Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Jermin John Vs State of Kerala