Allowed

Babu V.G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jan 2013Bail Appl./148/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single accused sought bail in a misappropriation case with ten-year delay in complaint. The court found merit in the public prosecutor's submission showing weak prosecution case, allowing bail via Magistrate with strict conditions regarding sureties and future conduct.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is granted bail to surrender before the Investigating Officer by 22.1.2013, report weekly on Fridays, and ensure verification of sureties and tax receipts by the Magistrate, with bail l

Babu V.G. Vs State of Kerala — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/26TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 148 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 765/2012 OF MANIMALA POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BABU V.G.,S/O GOPI,AGED 46 YEARS, VARIKKANILATH HOUSE,VAYPUR P.O., ANIKKADU VILLAGE,MALLAPPILLI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682 031. THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANIMALA POLICE STTION,KOTTYAM DISTRICT,PIN:686 121.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SHEEBA.M.T.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J

¶16

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

¶17

B.A No.148 of 2013

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2013

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.765/2012 of Manimala Police Station for having committed offence punishable under Section 403, 406 and 411 of IPC.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that while he was the Secretary of Kulathurprayar S.N.D.P Branch No.1378/10 under Changanacherry SNDP Union, he misappropriated a sum of Rs.25,000/-.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 13.3.2010 while complaint has been laid only in 2012. A crime has been registered on the basis of a private complaint, which is forwarded for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The immediate provocation, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an election is scheduled to be held in the near future and the petitioner is a reputed person in the locality. In order to prevent him from contesting the election the present play has been adopted.

¶23

B.A No.148 of 2013

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the allegations against the petitioner are serious.

¶26

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and having had perused the CD, it is felt that there is some substances in the complaint made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The allegation of misappropriation has taken place in 2010 and no complaint has been made so far. Instead a private complaint filed before the JFCM has been forwarded for investigation and a crime has been registered. There is no explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint.

¶27

Considering the facts and circumstances, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows:

¶28

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 22.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM concerned and on an application for bail being moved by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court.

¶29

B.A No.148 of 2013

¶30

: 3 :

¶31

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail.

¶32

Iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer concerned on every Friday between 9 am to 10 am until further orders.

¶33

iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶34

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

¶35

P.BHAVADASAN Judge

¶36

Babu V.G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu V.G. 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

T.R.Mohmmed Vs the State of Kerala

Koyotty Vs State of Kerala

Venu K. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Jamnas Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Pratheeshan Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash Vs State of Kerala