Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2785/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed by the petitioner accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Court granted bail with specific conditions regarding surrender, deposit, and no interference with witnesses, referencing P.K. Shaji V. State.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to surrender, bank deposit of Rs. 60,000, bond with sureties, and conditions prohibiting further offences or witness influence.

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2785 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 448/2014 OF AMBALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

SURESHKUMAR, S/O.BHAKTHAVALSALAN, AGED 49 YEARS, PROPRIETOR B & B CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED, KACHERY JUNCTION AMBALAPUZHA, RESIDING AT VELIYIL HOUSE, KOMANA MURI AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE AMBALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J

¶16

B.A.No.2785 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 2^nd day of June, 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.448 of 2014 of the Ambalapuzha Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶20

Application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that the petitioner and others were running a kuri, de facto complainant and others remitted subscription but the kuri was stopped, the amount was not repaid and the de facto complainant and others were cheated. A total of Rs.1,18,375/- is due to the de facto complainant and similarly placed subscribers.

¶21

Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. Several cases were registered against the petitioner and in some cases he was arrested and detained for several days.

¶22

Having heard both sides, I am inclined to grant relief to the petitioner but subject to conditions and protecting interest of the de facto complainant and other similarly placed persons as well.

¶23

Application is allowed as under:

¶24

B.A.No.2785 of 2014

¶25

¶26

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.448 of 2014 of the Ambalapuzha Police Station on 09.06.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation.

¶27

(ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply.

¶28

(iii) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (iv) On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail, (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:

¶29

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

¶30

(b) Petitioner shall deposit Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) in a Nationalized Bank in his name initially for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned magistrate) and produce the FD receipt before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond.

¶31

¶32

B.A.No.2785 of 2014

¶33

¶34

and he is made liable to pay compensation to the defacto complainat or any other person in the case, such compensation could be realized from the amount in deposit to the extent possible.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(f) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the

¶38

witnesses.

¶39

(v) It is made clear that in case any of condition Nos. (d) to (f) is violated, it is open to the Investigating Officer to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate as held in P.K. Shaji V. State

¶40

of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶43

¶44

/True Copy/

¶45

P.A. to Judge

Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.M.Girish Vs State of Kerala

Pathrose Vs State of Kerala

Justin John Vs State of Kerala

Shameer Vs State of Kerala

Vanajakshy Amma Vs the State of Kerala

Pranesh Vs State of Kerala