Allowed

T.P.Sajeev v. Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC24 Oct 2011Bail Appl./7037/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by the second accused in a case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court granted bail after recording satisfaction that the petitioner had complied with prior directions to appear for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on the condition of cooperating with investigation and appearing for interrogation when required.

T.P.Sajeev Vs Circle Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | 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 24TH OCTOBER 2011 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 7037 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.828/11 OF MALA POLICE STATION

¶5

PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.2

¶6

¶7

T.P.SAJEEV, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O PAPPUKUTTY, THOTTATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALATHUR, MELAD.P.O., KORATTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680 741.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

ADDL. R2 :

¶13

PANKAJAM SUNDARAN, AGED 49 YEARS W/O.SUNDARAN, MANAPPETTY HOUSE VALIYAPARAMBA DESOM, KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 24.10.2011 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 5921 OF 2011.

¶15

ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN FOR ADDL.R2

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶18

B.A.No.7037 of 2011

¶19

Dated this the 24th day of October, 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.828 of 2011 of Mala Police Station.

¶21

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

¶22

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 12.10.2011, the following order was passed :

¶23

“3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant.

¶24

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

¶25

BA 7037/11

¶26

¶27

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 18th and 19th October, 2011.

¶28

Post on 24.10.2011. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.828 of 2011 of Mala Police Station, till 27th October, 2011.

¶29

The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶31

that the direction in the order dated 12.10.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶32

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 12.10.2011 has been

¶33

BA 7037/11

¶34

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

concerned, subject to the following conditions :

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

above.

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

csl

T.P.Sajeev v. Circle Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Sajeev v. Circle Inspector of Police

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

Sanajayan Vs State

Sunil a.v.& Another Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh & Others Vs State

Abdullakutty Vs State of Kerala

Eldo K.David Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Kumar Vs State of Kerala