Dismissed

Pradeep T.B. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2014Bail Appl./3949/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Court held that Section 18 of the Act excludes its jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The application was dismissed with directions to the Magistrate to consider bail on merits if the petitioner is arrested.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; directions given to Magistrate to consider bail on merits if accused is arrested.

Pradeep T.B. Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3949 of 2014 (C)

¶6

[CRIME NO. 868/2014 OF NORTH PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT]

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

PRADEEP.T.B, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.BALAN, ALUMKAPARAMBIL, KARANAKODAM, THAMMANAM, KOCHI - 682 032, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.ANILKUMAR KALESSERIL.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA (REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH PARAVOOR POLICE STATIONCR.NO.868/2014 OF NORTH PARAVOOR POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SHIBU JOSEPH.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Prv.

¶15

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶16

B.A. No. 3949 of 2014

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2014

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 868/2014 of

¶21

North Paravoor Police Station which has been registered for the offences under Sections 403, 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (v) and (viii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act.

¶22

According to the prosecution, the de facto-complainant who is a member of Scheduled Caste, borrowed certain amount from the petitioner a few years ago. When the de factocomplainant failed to repay the whole amount, the petitioner wanted him to execute a mortgage deed as a security for the amount. The petitioner got a document prepared and representing to the de facto-complainant it was a mortgage deed he got signatures of the de facto-complainant. Later, it was reveald that it was a sale deed and the petitioner has thus

¶23

B.A. No. 3949 /2014 2

¶24

committed fraud upon the de facto-complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner has filed a false suit against the de facto-complainant in respect of the property. He has thus interfering with the rights of the de facto-complainant in the property.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

I have perused the case diary. There are sufficient averments in the complaint to attract certain provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Since Section 18 of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. this application cannot be entertained.

¶27

In the result, this application is dismissed.

¶28

But the learned Magistrate may consider on merits, the bail application which may be filed by the petitioner on his arrest.

¶29

¶30

SD/- K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

P.A. TO JUDGE

Pradeep T.B. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep T.B. 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

Sadiq Ali Vs State of Kerala

Anu Vs the State of Kerala

Jith Babu Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pradeesh Vs the State of Kerala