Partly allowed

Rajeev v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2012Bail Appl./4577/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC of Kerala disposed of an anticipatory bail application filed by three accused in a cheating case. The court dismissed bail for the first accused due to strong prosecution case but granted conditional bail to the second and third accused.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail dismissed for accused No.1. Granted to accused Nos.2 and 3 on conditions of surrender, bond, passport production, and availability for interrogation.

Rajeev 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 12TH DAY OF JULY 2012/21ST ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4577 of 2012 ()

¶6

IN CRIME NO.225/2012 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION

¶7

ACCUSED(S):

¶8

1. RAJEEV, AGED 29 YEARS

¶9

S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI KUZHIKKALAYIL VEEDU NJAKKUNILAM VALLIKODU PATHANAMTHITTA

¶10

2. VALSALA KUMARI, AGED 50 YEARS

¶11

W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN PILLAI KUZHIKKALAYIL VEEDU NJAKKUNILAM VALLIKODU PATHANAMTHITTA

¶12

3. SINDHU, AGED 28 YEARS W/O.RAJEEV KUZHIKKALAYIL VEEDU NJAKKUNILAM VALLIKODU PATHANAMTHITTA

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ

¶14

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-31.

¶16

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶17

PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶18

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE V.H.

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No.4577 OF 2012

¶23

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2012

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.225/2012 of Pathanamthitta Police Station. The offences alleged against them are under sections 420, 465 and 468 r/w 34 of IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶27

It is alleged that the first accused assured a job visa for the defacto complainant in Kuwait assuring that job would be secured as a nurse. For that purpose, the defacto complainant paid 1,75,000/- to the second petitioner. The further allegation is that the complainant was given a forged visa which was written in Arabi, believing that the visa handed over to the complainant was actually a genuine and valid visa. Air ticket for 25,500/- was taken for going to Kuwait. But later, it was found that the visa was a forged

¶28

B.A.No.4577/2012

¶29

-2-

¶30

one. It was also found that the amount was paid to her as instructed by the first accused. Second accused is the mother and the third accused is the wife of the first accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first petitioner was engaged in palliative care and when he went to Kuwait, he happened to have acquaintance with a person by name Rauf and when the first petitioner was returning from Kuwait, Rauf gave him a visa and told him to hand over the same to one Jayitha Padmanabha Panicker, and that she would come and collect the same. According to the first petitioner, on 24.04.2012, the complainant went to his house to collect visa. It is further contended that he had directed the complainant to contact Rauf. Thus, according to the petitioner, it was Rauf who committed cheating. It is only a story invented by the petitioner, the prosecution contends.

¶31

Considering all the aspects, I find no reason to grant anticipatory bail to the first accused. Hence it is dismissed.

¶32

B.A.No.4577/2012

¶33

-3-

¶34

Considering all the aspects, accused Nos. 2 and 3 are granted bail on the following conditions:

¶35

The petitioners 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 petitioners but on the following conditions:

¶36

a. The accused shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. 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.

¶37

b. The accused shall make themselves available for interrogation by the

¶38

B.A.No.4577/2012

¶39

-4-

¶40

Investigating Officer and that they should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶41

c. The accused shall produce their original passports before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If they are not having any valid passport, they should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶42

d. The accused will also file an affidavit that they will abide by all the conditions as mentioned above and that they will not commit any offence similar to the offence involved in this case and that they 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.

¶43

e. The accused shall not leave the state of Kerala without the prior permission of the learned Magistrate.

¶44

B.A.No.4577/2012

¶45

-5-

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶48

¶49

//True copy//

¶50

P.A. to Judge

Rajeev v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev 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

N.S.Vinodh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

K.Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Ridhul B.R. Vs State of Kerala

Naresh Kumar Garg Vs State of Kerala

Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Saju Antony Vs State of Kerala