Allowed

Girija Kumari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2012Bail Appl./5421/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application arising under Sections 420 and 34 IPC for alleged cheating, the High Court allowed the petition as a fit case for extraordinary jurisdiction, granting bail subject to surrender and strict adherence to bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on surrender before IO by 17.12.2012, execution of bond for Rs. 15,000 with two sureties, reporting to IO, and prohibition of tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Girija Kumari 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 P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/19TH AGRAHAYANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5421 of 2012 () -----------------------------(IN CRIME NO.1265/2011 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

¶6

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶7

GIRIJA KUMARI, AGED 52 YEARS INCHIPPULLIKKADAN VEEDU, CHALAKKUDI P.O. KALLOOR VADAKKUN MURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN

¶9

SRI.N.C.SAJUNAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶11

1. THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ON BEHALF OF STATE REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERAVIPURAM, KOLLAM.

¶12

*** ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED: 2. ADDL.R2: KAMALAMMA, W/O.LATE VENUGOPALAN, MUNNAM PADINJATATHIL HOUSE, AYATIL P.O, KOLLAM -691021**

¶13

**(IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.08.2012 IN CRL.M.A 5336/2012 IN B.A 5421/12)*

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MNS

¶17

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶18

- - - - B.A. No. 5421 of 2012

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2012.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1265 of 2011 of Eravipuram Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The allegation against the petitioner is that she and her husband cheated the defacto complainant by which she was made to execute a sale deed by representing that it was only a document for the purpose of availing a combined loan. It is stated that the defacto complainant also moved a complaint before the Chief Minister. The gist of the complaint is that the after the loan was availed of, the same was taken by the petitioner and the Bank is now preparing to proceed against the property.

¶22

The defacto complainant was impleaded and she had entered appearance.

¶23

B.A.5421/2012.

¶24

¶25

Petitioner would point out that the facts are not as stated in the complaint. The defacto complainant was finding it unable to repay the loan taken from the Co-operative Bank and the petitioner and her husband were approached by the defacto complainant with a proposal to sell the property to them and they accepted the proposal and availed of a loan of Rs.10 Lakhs and odd from the South Indian Bank. Out of which, according to the petitioner, by Annexure A1 document, it could be seen that part of the amount was utilized for discharge of the debt due to the Co-operative Bank. Thereafter, it is contended that the lady wanted to continue to reside in the house and she executed a rent agreement. Later at the behest of her relatives, she had filed a false complaint implicating the petitioner and her husband.

¶26

A copy of the complaint was made available for perusal. The main grievance in the complaint appears to be that inspite of repeated demands, the property has not been re-conveyed and the lady was cheated. The petitioner

¶27

B.A.5421/2012. 3

¶28

has produced Annexures A5 and A6 which would show that the property has been re-conveyed to the defacto complainant and her sons and therefore the complaint no longer subsists. Even otherwise, re-conveyance

¶29

pre-supposes the conveyance.

¶30

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and after perusing the records, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶32

i) Petitioner shall surrender before the

¶33

Investigating Officer on or before 17.12.2012, who after interrogation shall produce her before the JFCM concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release her on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand

¶34

B.A.5421/2012. 4

¶35

only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶36

ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond.

¶37

iii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by him.

¶38

iv) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶39

v) If any condition is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶40

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶41

sb.

Girija Kumari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girija Kumari 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

Santhosh S. Vs State of Kerala

Milton N.J. Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandra Menon Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Viswan Vs State of Kerala