Dismissed

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Aug 2012Bail Appl./5534/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Bail Application No. 5534/2012 regarding a cheating allegation under Section 420 IPC, Justice N.K. Balakrishnan declined to grant pre-arrest bail. Instead, he directed the petitioner to first surrender for police interrogation before applying for bail before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender for police interrogation and approach Magistrate subsequently.

Manoj 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

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/22ND SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5534 of 2012 () -----------------------------CRIME NO.780/2012 OF PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

MANOJ, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.K.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN, H-24, SHASTRI NAGAR KADAVANTHRA AND PARTNER OF M/S. DESIGNS AND VISION PALLINADA, PALARIVATTOM. BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.MANU ROY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, KOCHI-682 006.

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH V.S.

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-082012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

RKC

¶14

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶15

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 5534 OF 2012

¶16

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

¶17

Dated this the 13^th day of August, 2012

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is reported to be the 4^th accused in Crime No.780/2012 of Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam. The offence alleged against him is under section 420 r/w 34 of IPC. The complaint was originally filed against 3 accused persons. Subsequently, as the role of this petitioner was also revealed, he was arrayed as the 4^th accused. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed for anticipatory bail.

¶20

It is alleged that the defacto complainant had given 33.5 sovereigns of gold to the first accused who was residing on the first floor of her house. Those ornaments were in turn given by A1 to A2 who in turn gave the same to A3. It was stated that the gold ornaments were obtained from the then complainant and others for the real estate business conducted by the accused. The gold ornaments so

¶21

B.A.No.5534/2012

¶22

-2-

¶23

obtained by these accused persons were pledged with M/s. Muthoot at Palace Road and obtained a gold loan. It is alleged that the gold ornaments were not returned by the accused persons and thus the accused committed cheating.

¶24

The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that only because the police arrayed this petitioner also as the 4^th accused, this petition happened to be filed. According to the petitioner, he had absolutely no connection with the pledging of gold ornaments and obtaining of loan from the bank nor is he responsible for the pledging or obtaining of loan by the other accused persons.

¶25

In this connection, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier sent the complaint to the DGP. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that such a complaint was sent only to wriggle out of the liability. The Investigating Officer has to find out the role of each of the accused in this big fraud. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has also

¶26

B.A.No.5534/2012

¶27

-3-

¶28

referred to the FIR registered based on a complaint given by this petitioner as Crime No. 306/2011 of Palarivattom Police Station. According to the prosecution, such complaints were filed by the petitioner one after other to forestall the prosecution against him.

¶29

According to the prosecution, the money obtained by the 3^rd accused by pledging gold ornaments were actually handed over by the 3^rd accused to this petitioner (A4) and A4 invested that money in the name of another firm. It is also stated that the petitioner is involved in other crimes of similar nature. But it was stated that he was granted bail in those cases. Custodial interrogation of this petitioner is highly necessary, the prosecution contends.

¶30

Considering all aspects, I am not inclined to grant prearrest bail to the petitioner. If the petitioner surrenders before the Police/Investigating Officer, after interrogation the petitioner shall be produced before the Magistrate and if the petitioner applies for bail the learned Magistrate will

¶31

B.A.No.5534/2012

¶32

-4-

¶33

dispose of the same in accordance with law, but after hearing the learned APP as well and also after perusal of the case diary, if so required and also after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Investigating Officer files application for police custody for further interrogation that shall also be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law.

¶34

Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶35

¶36

//True copy//

¶37

P.A. to Judge

Manoj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nadukkandiyil Mahamood Vs State of Kerala

Jamalu.K.v. Vs State of Kerala

Chandrika Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh @ Kunippan Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

A.Sumathi Vs the State of Kerala

Nidhin Vs State