Partly allowed

Sajeevkumar v. Th Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC5 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6096/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by Sajeevkumar and Saleena in a cheating case. The Court granted conditional bail only to the second petitioner (Saleena), dismissing the prayer for the first petitioner. Conditions included a bond, a monetary deposit, and regular reporting.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the 2nd petitioner alone on execution of a bond with sureties, deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-, and subject to reporting conditions; prayer for the 1st petitioner dismissed.

Sajeevkumar Vs Th Sub Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/14TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6096 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 3738/2014 of J.M.F.C., ADOOR DATED 16-07-2014 CRIME NO. 770/2013 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTITTA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SAJEEVKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS NEELIMA VEEDU, THOTTINUM VADAKKU MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

¶9

2. SALEENA, AGED 32 YEARS NEELIMA VEEDU, THOTTINUM VADAKKU MURI, CHAVARA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODUMON POLICE STATION PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 695.

¶13

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

¶14

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶17

................................................................ B.A. No.6096 of 2014

¶18

............................................................... Dated this the 5^th day of September, 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Petitioners are A1 and A2 in Crime No.770/2013 of Kodumon Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 204, 418 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The allegation against the petitioners is that on a

¶23

promise that they would give their Skoda car to the defacto complainant in exchange of two other vehicles of the defacto complainant, they entrusted the Skoda car to the defacto complainant and took away his two vehicles. Thereafter, by making a representation that the Skoda car required some repairs, they obtained the possession of the Skoda car from the defacto complainant and went away

¶24

B.A.No.6096 of 2014

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

from there. Thereafter, they have not cared to give back any of the vehicles to the defacto complainant.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶28

learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that at least the 2^nd petitioner who is the wife of the 1^st petitioner may be enlarged on bail because of the fact that the children of the petitioners are minors and there is nobody to look after and maintain them.

¶30

The petitioners are in custody for the period from 14.07.2014. This is a case wherein large scale cheating was staged. At the same time, having regard to the period undergone by the 2^nd petitioner in custody and the facts and other circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that she can be enlarged on bail on conditions including the deposit of an amount equal to half the approximate value of the car.

¶31

B.A.No.6096 of 2014

¶32

-: 3 :-

¶33

In the result, this Bail Application is partly allowed

¶34

and the 2^nd petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on her executing a bond for `5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court below, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶35

(i) The 2^nd petitioner shall deposit an amount of `5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) before the court below.

¶36

(ii) The 2^nd petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Fridays and Tuesdays, commencing from 12-09-2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

¶37

(iii) The 2^nd petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶38

(iv) The 2^nd petitioner shall make herself available for

¶39

interrogation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶40

B.A.No.6096 of 2014

¶41

-: 4 :-

¶42

(v) The 2^nd petitioner shall not involve in any offence

¶43

while on bail.

¶44

It is made clear that the violation of any of the

¶45

conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.

¶46

The Bail Application, as far as the 1^st petitioner is

¶47

concerned, stands dismissed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶50

ul/-

¶51

[True copy]

¶52

P.S. to Judge

Sajeevkumar v. Th Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeevkumar v. Th Sub Inspector of Police

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

K.G.Raveendran Pillai Vs M.O.Devassy

Balakrishnan Nair Vs S.S.Unnikrishnan

General Engineers Vs Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.v.Arabian Sea

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala

Sivanandan @ Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala