Dismissed

Umadath a. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2013Bail Appl./8015/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a pre-arrest bail application filed by a petitioner accused of forgery and impersonation regarding a forged salary bill. The Court held that materials indicated involvement and the infant stage of investigation precluded the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The petition for pre-arrest bail is dismissed.

Umadath a. 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

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/17TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8015 of 2012 (B)

¶6

[CR.NO.532/2012 OF THE KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

UMADATH .A, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.M.O.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGRICULTURIST, AVARONNAM HOUSE, PETTUVAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶12

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THE KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.

¶13

*ADDL. R3. IMPLEADED:

¶14

3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, KERLA STATE BACKWARD CLASS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KANNUR.

¶15

*ADDL. R.3. IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14/11/12 IN CRL.M.A. 7386/12 IN B.A. NO.8015/12.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y, R3 ADV. SRI.JAYAPRADEEP.V, S.C.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Prv.

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No.8015 of 2012

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2013

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Alleging that the petitioner was impersonated and forged certain documents made in the name of another person and he has nothing to do with the transaction involved in the crime, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail from this Court.

¶24

Allegation against the petitioner is that he forged salary bill to enable the first accused in this case to avail loan from the Kerala State Backward Class Development Corporation. When the amount was not repaid by the petitioner, the Corporation tried to realise it. It was found that salary certificate produced was forged.

¶25

The claim of the petitioner is that he is innocent and unaware of the fact that he was impersonated and hence he has not preferred any complaint before the authority.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition pointing out that investigation is at an infant stage.

¶27

On going through the CD made available for perusal,

¶28

the claim of the petitioner that he is innocent cannot be accepted since there are materials to show his involvement in

¶29

B.A.No.8015/2012 :2:

¶30

the crime. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioner, the manner in which the offence is committed and also the fact that investigation is at an infant stage, preclude this Court from exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

P.BHAVADASAN,

¶32

Judge.

¶33

okb.

Umadath a. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umadath a. 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

Praveen Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

Gafoor K.S. Vs State of Kerala

Afsal V.K. Vs the Station House Officer

Gandheevan @ Arun Vs State of Kerala

Ranjithkumar P.P Vs State of Kerala