Disposed

Sreedevi Vijayan v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC21 May 2014Bail Appl./2907/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application by the accused Sree Devi Vijayan. Instead of granting bail on merits, the court directed the petitioner to surrender for interrogation and prepare a formal bail application after questioning, leaving the bail decision to the magistrate.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to surrender for interrogation on 27.05.2014. A future bail application must be moved after completion of questioning.

Sreedevi Vijayan Vs Station House Officer — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2014/31ST VAISAKHA, 1936B

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2907 of 2014 () -------------------------------

¶6

CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SREEDEVI VIJAYAN AGED 41 YEARS W/O.K.K.VIJAYAN, 13/1043, ANIL NIVAS KARUVELIPADY COCHIN-682 005.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.K.R.RANJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATION HOUSE OFFICER THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV.LALIZA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶15

====================================

¶16

B.A. No. 2907 of 2014

¶17

==================================== Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2014

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.445 of 2014 of the Thoppumpady Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 415, 417, 420 and 120B read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant have opposed the application. It is submitted that the petitioner and accused 2 and 3 entered into a conspiracy and collected gold ornaments from the de facto complainant on a promise to return the same. After the purpose was over they refused to return the same and thus cheated the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that the petitioner entered into the beauty parlour of the de facto complainant and committed theft of some gold ornaments. It is submitted that petitioner has executed two agreements in favour of the de facto complainant undertaking to return the gold ornaments but failed to comply with the undertaking.

¶21

B.A. No.2907 of 2014

¶22

-: 2 :-

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are not true. It is also submitted that the complaint refers to certain incidents which allegedly happened years back.

¶24

I have gone through the agreements allegedly executed by the petitioner, found in file of the Public prosecutor. Having regard to the circumstances of the case I am inclined to issue directions.

¶25

(i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Officer investigating Crime No.445 of 2014 of the Thoppumpady Police Station on 27.05.2014 at 10.00 a.m. for interrogation.

¶26

(ii) In case interrogation is not completed on 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.

¶27

(iii) After questioning the petitioner if he is arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶28

(iv) On such production it is open to the petitioner to move application for bail with intimation given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned at least three working days in

¶29

B.A. No.2907 of 2014

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

advance.

¶32

(v) If for any reason custody of the petitioner is required, it is open to the Officer investigating the case to move application for that purpose.

¶33

(vi) Learned magistrate shall dispose of the application(s) having regard to all relevant circumstances including the necessity for remand, as per the law and pass orders as early as possible.

¶34

The application is disposed of as above.

¶35

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶36

vsv

Sreedevi Vijayan v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreedevi Vijayan v. Station House Officer

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

Uthaman Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Prasadu Vs the State of Kerala

Kallyani Vs the State of Kerala

K.Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jaleel.P. Vs the State of Kerala