Allowed

Bhamini v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2014Bail Appl./4340/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Kerala granted bail to the accused woman in a cheating case pending police investigation, imposing conditions including a surety, fixed deposit of the cheated amount, and periodic interrogation without requiring immediate custodial questioning.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to surrender, cooperation, deposit of Rs. 3,33,000, fixed deposit receipt production, and appearance for interrogation.

Bhamini 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

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2014/13TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4340 of 2014 ()

¶6

------------------------------(CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

BHAMINI, AGED 70 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANAN, SHIBU NIVAS, KUNNUMEL, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶14

KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶17

PALLIKKAL POLICE STATION,

¶18

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶19

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶20

R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶21

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

sts

¶23

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶24

Bail Appl.No. 4340 of 2014 ()

¶25

Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2014

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is accused in Crime No.697 of 2014 of the Kilimanoor Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 460, 420, 423, 468 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶28

2.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that petitioner sold his property to the de facto complainant for 3,33,000/- making the de facto complainant believe that the property is free from encumbrance. But it was revealed that the property was mortgaged to the land mortgage Bank, Kilimanoor for 13,00,000/-. Thereby, the de facto complainant was cheated.

¶29

3.Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. Son of the petitioner gave signed blank stamp papers. Under threat, the petitioner was constrained to

¶30

Bail Appl.No. 4340 of 2014 ()

¶31

¶32

execute sale deed in favour of the de facto complainant.

¶33

4.Having heard both sides, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. At the same time, interest of the de facto complainant has to be protected. I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions.

¶34

The application is allowed as under :

¶35

Petitioner shall surrender before the

¶36

officer investigating Crime No.697 of 2014 of the Kilimanoor Police Station on 10.07.2014 at about 10.00 a.m.

¶37

In case interrogation is not completed that day, the petitioner shall appear before the officer investigating the case on any other day/days at reasonable time and place as directed by the investigating officer.

¶38

¶39

Bail Appl.No. 4340 of 2014 ()

¶40

The petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case.

¶41

In case the petitioner is arrested, she shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶42

On such production, the petitioner shall be released on bail, if not required

¶43

to be detained otherwise on her executing bond for `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 :

¶44

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

¶45

b. Petitioner shall deposit `3,33,000/(Rupees three lakhs and thirty three thousand only) in a

¶46

nationalised/Scheduled bank or cooperative society as the case may be,

¶47

¶48

Bail Appl.No. 4340 of 2014 ()

¶49

initially for a period of two years (renewable as per order of the learned Magistrate) and produce the Fixed Deposit receipt before the learned magistrate without fail, within a month from the date of her executing the bail bond.

¶50

c. In case the petitioner is made liable to

¶51

pay compensation to the de facto complainant, such compensation the extent possible could be realised from the amount in deposit.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

f. Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶55

g. In case any of condition Nos. (b) and

¶56

Bail Appl.No. 4340 of 2014 ()

¶57

¶58

(d) to (f) is violated, it is open to the investigating officer or the de facto complainant to file application before the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail granted hereby, as held in P.K.Shaji v.State of Kerala [AIR 2006 SC 100].

¶59

THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶60

AMV

¶61

/TRUE COPY/

¶62

P.A.TO JUDGE

Bhamini v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhamini 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

Shameer K.A. Vs State of Kerala

Jithu Vs the State of Kerala

Rahul Govind Vs State of Kerala

Rajiv Vs State of Kerala

Regi Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala