Dismissed

Sunilkumar B. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Oct 2011Bail Appl./6430/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed this application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused in a forgery and cheating case. The judge held that the charges were serious and custodial interrogation was necessary for the investigation, ruling that bail would hamper the process.

What did the court decide?

The Bail Application under Section 438 CrPC was dismissed; anticipatory bail was not granted.

Sunilkumar B. 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

MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6430 of 2011

¶6

CRIME NO.324 OF 2011 OF KULATHUPUZHA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1

¶8

¶9

SUNIL KUMAR.B, S/O. BHASKARAN NAIR, VALIAVEETTIL, VILLUMALA.P.O, KULATHUPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS: STATE AND COMPLAINANT

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KULATHUPUZHA POLICE STATION, KULATHUPUZHA.

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------Bail Appl. NO. 6430 OF 2011

¶19

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2011

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.324 of 2011 of Kulathupuzha Police Station, Kollam District.

¶22

The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 484, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution case is that the accused persons forged the seal of the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner and affixed the seal in unauthorised receipts which were used for collecting money from the devotees unauthorisedly.

¶24

The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in

¶25

nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think

¶26

BAIL APPL. NO. 6430 OF 2011

¶27

:: 2 ::

¶28

that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case.

¶29

For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.

¶30

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶31

ahz/

Sunilkumar B. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunilkumar B. 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

J.Rao Jayachandran Vs the State of Kerala

Anil.K.Pappachan Vs State of Kerala

Rabdeen Saleem Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash & Others Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Kumar a & Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Reghu Vs State of Kerala