Allowed

Sandhya K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2012Bail Appl./4663/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application filed by Sandhya K for anticipatory bail in a cheating case under Section 420 IPC was allowed with conditions. The petitioner was directed to surrender, execute a bond, appear for interrogation, and abide by specific conditions including not leaving Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender, bond execution, interrogation, and specific conditions including not leaving Kerala.

Sandhya K Vs State of Kerala — Narcotics (NDPS) | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2012/20TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4663 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.715/2012 OF PARIPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SANDHYA K, AGED 27 YEARS, KUNNU BUNGALOW, PALAYAMKUNNU.P.O., VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 146.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHEESH

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

N. K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶16

=================

¶17

B. A. No. 4663 of 2012

¶18

=================

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 715 of 2012 of the Paripally Police Station. Offence alleged against her is under section 420 IPC. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶22

It is alleged that the petitioner pledged two gold chains weighing 174.5 gms. with Muthoot Fin. Corporation, Paripally Branch and obtained Rs.3,79,500/-. The gold chains so pledged were found to be of spurious gold and thus, the petitioner cheated the bank, it is alleged.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware that the gold chains, which she had taken to the bank to pledge for obtaining loan, was spurious. That gold ornaments were actually purchased by her and her husband and she was not aware that the gold was spurious. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is a

¶24

B.A.No.4663/2012 - 2 -

¶25

woman and her husband is now working abroad and immediately after his arrival, the matter will be settled with the complainant.

¶26

Considering all the aspects, the following directions are issued:

¶27

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

¶28

a) The petitioner 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 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.

¶29

b) The petitioner shall make himself available for

¶30

B.A.No.4663/2012 - 3 -

¶31

interrogation by the Investigating Officer and he should appear before the Investigating Officer on all alternate Saturdays between 9.30 AM to 11.30 AM until further orders.

¶32

c) The petitioner shall produce his original passport before the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. If he is not having any valid passport, he should file an affidavit regarding the same before the Magistrate.

¶33

d) The petitioner will also file an affidavit stating 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 petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without permission of the court.

¶35

f) The learned Magistrate will also ensure the

¶36

B.A.No.4663/2012

¶37

¶38

identity of the sureties by insisting production of electoral photo identity cards/driving licence etc.

¶39

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶40

Sandhya K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya K 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

Binoy Vs State of Kerala

Mahendran Vs Sub Inspector of Police Kunnamangalam

Vinosh Vs State of Kerala

N.S.Vinodh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

K.Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Ridhul B.R. Vs State of Kerala