Allowed

V.P.Nandakumar and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Nov 2011Bail Appl./8089/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to accused numbers 2, 3, and 4 in a cheating and forgery case involving financial misconduct. The court provided a circular order requiring the payment of the disputed amount and交纳金额，并 stipulated several conditions to prevent interference with witnesses or further criminal activity.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of bond for Rs. 10,000 each with sureties, payment of disputed amount upon complainant's application, and adherence to reporting and conduct conditions.

V.P.Nandakumar and Others Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8089 of 2011()

¶6

¶7

CRIME NO.948 OF 2011 OF KODUNGALLOOR POLICE STATION

¶8

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4

¶9

¶10

V.P.NANDAKUMAR,S/O.PADHMANABHAN, 'PADMASAROJ',VAZHAPPILLY VEEDU,VALLAPAD PO, THRISSUR.

¶11

K.S.SWAPNA,BRANCH MANAGER, MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD.,

¶12

XX/888,EDACHALIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, KODUNGALLOOR.

¶13

C.R.RAKHI,ASSISTANT MANAGER, MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD., XX/888, EDACHALIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, KODUNGALLOOR.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.RAFFEEKH.K

¶15

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶16

¶17

STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, KOLDUNGALLOOR POLICE STATION.

¶18

BY STATE PROSECUTOR SRI.ASIF ALI

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶21

Bail Appl. NO. 8089 OF 2011

¶22

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2011

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused No. 2 to 4 in Crime No. 948 of 2011 of the Kodungalloor Police Station.

¶25

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Section 409, 454, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 14-11-2011, the following order was passed;

¶27

“1. The allegation made by the de facto complainant is that instead of renewing the two deposits Rs. 32,949/- each, the accused issued a receipt in the name of Manappuram Agro Farms. It is submitted that such a Company is not in

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO.8089 OF2011

¶29

:: 2 ::

¶30

existence.

¶31

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the first accused Company, namely, Manappuram General Finance & Leasing Ltd. could not accept deposits, in view of the restrictions made by the Reserve Bank of India. The Company, therefore, could not renew the deposits. Therefore, to protect the interest of the depositors, the deposits were made in Manappuram Agro Farms. It is also submitted that the accused are prepared to pay the entire amount due to the de facto complainant. The learned counsel also submitted that the amount was sent by way of a cheque to the de facto complainant. But, it was not accepted by the de facto complainant.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that there are hundreds of such instances and the accused cannot wash off their hands by paying the amount to the de facto complainant alone. However, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submitted that the de facto complainant is ready to accept the amount, subject of course to the continuance of the case

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO.8089 OF2011

¶34

:: 3 ::

¶35

as per law.

¶36

Post on 16-11-2011 at 1.45 P.M. The petitioners shall pay the amount to the de facto complainant by that time.

¶37

There will be an interim direction not to arrest the petitioners in connection with Crime No.948 of 2011 of Kodungallur Police Station for a period of ten days.”

¶38

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners offered to pay the amount by way of a cheque to the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant.

¶39

The learned counsel for the de facto complainant submitted that there are several other persons who are entitled to get amounts and if the de facto complainant receives the amount at present, he would be accused of not protecting the interests of other depositors.

¶40

BAIL APPL. NO.8089 OF2011

¶41

:: 4 ::

¶42

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶43

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on alternate Mondays for two months.

¶44

b) As and when the de facto complainant is ready to receive the amount, as manifested in an application filed before the court for that purpose, the petitioners shall pay/deposit the amount before the court within a period of one month.

¶45

BAIL APPL. NO.8089 OF2011

¶46

:: 5 ::

¶47

c) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶48

d) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶52

above.

¶53

K.T.SANKARAN, Judge.

¶54

V.P.Nandakumar and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Nandakumar and Others 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

Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Souda Beevi Vs the Ast.Commissioner & Another

Arun Raj Vs Sub Inspector of Police, &Another

Satheesh & Another Vs State of Kerala

Abdurahim N.P. Vs State of Kerala