Allowed

K.Sudhana Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2013Bail Appl./1901/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by the fourth accused charged with offences under Secs. 465, 466, 468, 471, 120B IPC for issuing a marriage certificate with false entries regarding gold ornaments.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed on the condition that the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer by 01.04.2013, reports on Thursdays, and does not tamper with evidence or influence witnesse

K.Sudhana Mohanan Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2013/1ST CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1901 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 145/2013 OF KOODAL POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4:

¶8

K.SUDHANA MOHANAN, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.P.G.KUNJU KRISHNAN, PUTHUKULATHU PAURNAMI KOODAL.P.O, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR SRI.V.V.RAJA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

tss

¶15

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

Bail Application No.1901 OF 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2013.

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is 4^th accused in Crime No.145/2013 of Koodal Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He is the Secretary of the SNDP Shakha Yogum, Koodal South. The allegation against him is that he issued marriage certificate containing false entries regarding the gold ornaments given to the bride at the time of marriage.

¶19

The petitioner would point out that he is totally innocent

¶20

and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. It is also pointed out that he is a responsible officer of the recognised orgnisation and the allegations have no basis. Therefore, he seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and

¶22

pointed out that the investigation is at an infant stage.

¶23

B.A. No.1901/2013

¶24

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, there are allegations against the petitioner which are not so convincing enough.

¶26

Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is felt that this is a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶27

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 01.04.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him 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 Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned.

¶28

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by him.

¶29

iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating

¶30

B.A. No.1901/2013

¶31

¶32

Officer on every Thursday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m 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 Judicial First Class Magistrate Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶35

P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE

¶36

smp

K.Sudhana Mohanan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sudhana Mohanan 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

Rajaneesh Vs State of Kerala

Salim B.A. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

K.V. Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar.P Vs State of Kerala

Naisam Vs State of Kerala

B.A. Mohammed Farooque Vs State of Kerala