Allowed

Vishnu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2012Bail Appl./2968/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a bail application in a cheating case involving fake gold. The Court directed the accused to surrender for interrogation within 10 days and issued conditions granting bail to the magistrate, including execution of a bond, attendance for specific hours, identity verification of sureties, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or leaving the state.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to surrender within 10 days, execution of a bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties, weekly interrogation attendance, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or leaving the state.

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2968 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CRL.MC.NO.555/2012 of DISTRICT AND & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO:99/2012 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VISHNU, AGED 24 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PERUMBALLOOR, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.ELAYATH SRI.PAULSON THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH V.S.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISION ON 07-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MJL

¶15

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

================== B.A.No. 2968 of 2012

¶17

========================= Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2012

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is the accused in Crime no.99/2012 of Muvattupuzha police station. The offence alleged against him is under Sec.420 of IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant by pledging 9.400 grams allegedly pure gold, but which was subsequently found out to be fake gold.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent. It is also submitted that the principal amount due to the complainant will be paid by the petitioner.

¶21

Considering all the aspects, the following directions are issued:

¶22

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the

¶23

B.A.No.2968/2012

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the

¶26

accused, the learned Magistrate can, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioners but on the following conditions:

¶27

a. The accused shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. If in case the Magistrate has any doubt about the genuineness or correctness of the tax receipts produced by the sureties, the learned Magistrate can insist for production of the attested photo copies of the original title deeds of the sureties.

¶28

b. The accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer and that he should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶29

c. The accused shall produce his original passport before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If he is not having any valid

¶30

B.A.No.2968/2012

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶33

d. The accused will also file an affidavit that he will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that he will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

e. The accused and the sureties shall not leave State of Kerala without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶35

f. The learned Magistrate will also ensure the identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/Driving licence etc.

¶36

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶37

das

Vishnu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu 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

Karayi Rajan Vs CBI

Jose Linaker Celho Vs State of Kerala

Nithin Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Deepan Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Kumar.T Vs State of Kerala