Dismissed

Ranjithkumar P.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jan 2013Bail Appl./8789/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding forgery and cheating charges, the Court rejected the claim of the accused, who was employed at a bank. The Court held that the infant stage of investigation, nature of allegations, and loss caused precluded granting pre-arrest bail. The petitioner was directed to surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; accused directed to surrender to Investigation Officer.

Ranjithkumar P.P Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | 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. 8789 of 2012 ()

¶6

(CIRME NO.1352/2012 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RANJITHKUMAR P.P, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOJSE PANAPPUZHA, M.M. BAZAR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

¶10

SRI.P.S.BINU

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶15

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

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

B.A. No.8789 of 2012

Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2013

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner, an employee of a Bank, is accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 403, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC.

¶22

The petitioner would say that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated with ulterior motive. He seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶23

Allegation against the petitioner is that one Mr. M.T.P.Abdulla had given a cash cheque to the accused for opening an account in the name of his wife. The petitioner is employed with Axis Bank. He did not deposit the amount and issued a forged counterfoil without the authority of the Bank and thereby cheated the Bank as well as the customer.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the complaint has been lodged two months later and the story put forward is such as incredible and unbelievable.

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and after having perused the records, it does not appear that the claim of the

¶26

B.A.No.8789/2012 :2:

¶27

petitioner can be accepted. A copy of the complaint made available for perusal would show that the petitioner had received a cheque and encashed the same. A deeper probe into the matter is not warranted at this point of time. Suffice it to say that considering the nature of allegations, the loss caused to the Bank and the customer 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 dismissed.

¶28

However, if the petitioner is so advised, he may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 15.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM court concerned, which Court, on bail application being moved by the petitioner, shall dispose it of in accordance with law, preferably on the date of production itself.

¶29

P.BHAVADASAN,

¶30

Judge.

¶31

okb.

Ranjithkumar P.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjithkumar P.P 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

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

Umadath a. Vs State of Kerala

Gandheevan @ Arun Vs State of Kerala