Allowed

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2013Bail Appl./8133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning offences under Sections 420, 403, 465, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC in a vehicle fraud case, the Kerala High Court granted bail to two petitioners on execution of bond and imposed specific conditions including reporting to the IO and not intimidating witnesses, referring P.K.Shaji.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to accused on bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to conditions of reporting and non-intimidation of witnesses.

Anoop 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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8133 of 2013 (C)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 1863/2013 OF SASTHAMCOTTA POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANOOP, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.BASHEER, MOTTI MANZIL, MUTHUKATTUKARA MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-12-2013, ALONG WITH B.A. NO.8139/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Prv.

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶16

B.A.Nos.8133 & 8139 of 2013

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2013

¶18

ORDER

¶19

These applications are preferred by the accused Nos. 2

¶20

and 1 respectively, in Crime No.1863 of 2013 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 403, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, first accused is in custody from 02-112013, seeks regular bail, the second accused apprehends arrest and has sought pre-arrest bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the applications has submitted that the petitioner took a tipper lorry bearing No.KL-01/Q/4898 on rent from the defacto complainant and transferred it to Basheer on the strength of forged documents. The said Basheer transferred that vehicle to the second accused. Investigation of the case is not completed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the second accused has submitted that even as per the prosecution version, he has purchased the vehicle from Basheer to whom the first accused had transferred the vehicle allegedly on strength of forged vehicle. The second accused is a bona fide purchaser and

¶23

¶24

B.A.Nos.8133 & 8139 of 2013

¶25

custodial interrogation is not required.

¶26

Learned counsel for the first accused has contended

¶27

that the allegations against him are not true. It is also

¶28

submitted that the first accused is in custody from 02-112013.

¶29

Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am

¶30

inclined to grant relief to the accused 1 and 2.

¶31

Resultantly, these applications are disposed of as under:

¶32

I) B.A.No.8133 of 2013

¶33

This application is allowed as under .

¶34

In case petitioner is arrested in Crime No.1863 of 2013 of

¶35

the Sasthamcotta Police Station, he shall be released, if not

¶36

required to be detained otherwise on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶37

a) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.

¶38

b) Petitioner shall not intimidate/influence the

¶39

witnesses.

¶40

B.A.Nos.8133 & 8139 of 2013

¶41

¶42

II) B.A.No.8139 of 2013

¶43

a) Petitioner is granted bail in Crime No.1863 of 2013 of the Sasthamcotta Police Station and shall be released, if not required to be detained otherwise on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶44

b) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

¶45

c) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on every Saturday between 10 a.m and 12 p.m until filing of the final report.

¶46

d) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case as and when required for interrogation.

¶47

e) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.

¶48

f) Petitioner shall not intimidate/influence the

¶49

witnesses.

¶50

III) In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail

¶51

B.A.Nos.8133 & 8139 of 2013

¶52

¶53

granted hereby to the petitioners is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of

¶54

Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶57

¶58

/True Copy/ P.A. to Judge

Anoop v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irshad T.M. Vs State of Kerala

Murali Menon Vs State of Kerala

George @ Achankunju Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Afsal N.A Vs State of Kerala

Alex Vs State of Kerala

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala