The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dismissed a bail application filed by the first accused in a cheating case involving a forged salary certificate used to obtain a loan, holding that the investigation was in an infant stage and the claim of lack of knowledge was not credible.
The bail application is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
SATURDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 8533 of 2012 ()
CRIME NO.396/2012 OF THE MEENANGADY POLICE STATION, (WAYANAD DISTRICT.)
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
MINI MOL, AGED 36 YEARS W/O SAJEEVAN, CHERANGOTTIL HOUSE, VALAVAYAL POST VATTATHANI, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
SMT.SMITHA GEORGE SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031
2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MEENANGADI POLICE STATION WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 591.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2012, THE COURT ON 01-12-2012 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
P. BHAVADASAN, J.
Dated this the 1st day of December, 2012.
ORDER
The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.396 of 2012 of Meenangady Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
B.A.8533/2012.
2
done by the second and third accused and the petitioner cannot be held liable for the same. It is clear that the petitioner had nothing to do with the forgery and she has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. On the basis of these contentions, pre-arrest bail is sought for on behalf of the petitioner.
B.A.8533/2012.
3
petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the CD, it is felt that the claim made by the learned Public Prosecutor has much substance. The complaint was laid by the District Manager of Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation complaining that the salary certificate produced by the petitioner for availing of the loan was a forged one. The claim of the petitioner that she was unaware that the certificate so produced by the petitioner is a forged one cannot be accepted. She was the beneficiary of the transaction and she was bound to verify whether the certificate produced is genuine. She cannot wash off her hands by saying that it was the act of the second and third accused and about which the petitioner had no knowledge and she had no role to play, She was bound to verify whether the certificate that is being produced by the petitioner is genuine or whether
B.A.8533/2012.
4
the claim of the second accused that he is employed at a particular place is true or not.
against the petitioner, the manner in which the offence was committed and the fact that investigation is at an infant stage precludes this court from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
This application is devoid of merits. It is
accordingly dismissed.
P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sb.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the first accused who was involved in obtaining a loan using a forged salary certificate under Section 420 IPC.
Whether the petitioner was unaware of the forgery and thus should be held liable for the act of other accused persons.
Mini Mol
State of Kerala
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
