Allowed

Ajithkumar Menon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2012Bail Appl./3608/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 420 IPC, the High Court of Kerala allowed bail with the direction that the accused shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days. The court imposed conditions including a bond with sureties, availability for interrogation, production of original passport, and an affidavit of abiding by conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days and shall be granted bail subject to specified conditions including posting a bond with sureties and appearing for interr

Ajithkumar Menon 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/22ND JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3608 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO.594/2012 OF THRISSUR TOWN WEST POLICE STATION IN CRMC.852/2012 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR)

¶7

ACCUSED(S)/APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

AJITHKUMAR MENON

¶9

S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, PALIYATH HOUSE, FLAT NO.4-D OMEGA, GENTIN PALACE, 4TH FLOOR PUNKUNNAM-680 002, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)

¶11

SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶12

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH.V.S

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

B.A.No.3608 of 2012

¶19

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2012

¶20

Order

¶21

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.594 of 2012 of Thrissur Town West Police Station. The offence alleged against him is under Section 420 IPC. It was alleged that the petitioner induced the complainant to deposit amount into a company by name 'Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.' Because of the inducement, the complainant was stated to have deposited Rs.One lakh. The said amount was not repaid and no interest was also paid, it was alleged. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as agreed upon the monthly remittances were made

¶22

to the account of the complainant the total of which comes to Rs.1,71,141/-. It is stated that the said amount was remitted directly by the company. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the amount deposited by the complainant in the company is not Rs.One lakh but more than Rs.4 lakhs. This is not the case stated in the complaint, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits.

¶23

Considering all the aspects, the following directions are

BA 3608/12

issued:

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today. After interrogation the accused shall be produced before the learned Magistrate. When applied for bail by the accused, the learned Magistrate can, considering the nature of the case, grant bail to the petitioner but on the following conditions:

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

BA 3608/12

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

d. The accused will also file 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

¶35

to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶36

e. The accused shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court.

¶37

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

¶38

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶39

srd

¶40

BA 3608/12 4

¶41

BA 3608/12 5

Ajithkumar Menon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajithkumar Menon 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

Johny Mathew Vs State Oe Kerala

Shihabudheen M.I Vs State of Kerala

Jerome Vs State of Kerala

Hamsa K.V Vs State of Kerala

B.S.Satheesh Shetty Vs Excise Range Officer

Ramadas Vs State of Kerala