Dismissed

Jancy Benny v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Sept 2014Bail Appl./6611/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for accused nos. 1, 2, and 3 charged with cheating. The court held that custody of the 3rd accused was necessary for investigation as she was specifically alleged to have received money, and noted the application was infructuous for the first two accused who were already in custody. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed in its entirety.

Jancy Benny 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 V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/28TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl. No. 6611 of 2014 ()

¶6

Crime No. 1776 of 2014 of Thiruvalla Police Station

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

JANCY BENNY, AGED 45 YEARS W/O. BENNY VADAKKUMURIYIL, VALLAMKULAM VILLAGE ERAVIPEROOR POST, THIRUVALLA TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BENNY, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. CHACKO, VADAKKUMURIYIL, VALLAMKULAM VILLAGE ERAVIPEROOR POST, THIRUVALLA TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

AMMUKUTTY CHACKO AGED 77 YEARS W/O. LATE CHACKO, VADAKKUMURIYIL,

¶11

VALLAMKULAM VILLAGE ERAVIPEROOR POST, THIRUVALLA TALUK PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

V.K. MOHANAN, J.

¶18

Bail Application No. 6611 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 19^th day of September, 2014

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for anticipatory bail, by accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 1776/2014 of Thiruvalla Police Station for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Sec. 34 IPC. This petition has become infructous as far as petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned since they were arrested during the pendency of this application, as recorded by this court by order dated 12-09-2014.

¶22

The allegation against the petitioners is that they have accepted money from various persons promising to arrange visa

¶23

for jobs in Georgia and subsequently they failed to arrange visa as promised, and thus, it is alleged that the accused has committed

¶24

B.A. No. 6611 of 2014

¶25

¶26

the aforesaid offence.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶28

learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an old lady aged 77 years and there is no allegation that the 3^rd petitioner had received money for her own purpose. But the allegation is that, at the instance of the 2^nd accused who is the son of the 3^rd accused, the petitioner/3^rd accused received Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is also submitted that it is absolutely a false allegation.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted

¶31

that as per the version of the de facto complainant in the above crime, it was the 3^rd petitioner who is the third accused in the above crime received Rs. 2,00,000/- out of Rs. 7,40,000/- from the said transaction and, therefore, the custody of the petitioner is

¶32

B.A. No. 6611 of 2014

¶33

¶34

absolutely necessary to complete the investigation.

¶35

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, according to me, the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor that the custody of the petitioner is necessary for investigation, cannot be treated as baseless since the specific allegation against the 3^rd petitioner/3^rd accused is that it was she who received Rs. 2,00,000/- from the de facto complainant. As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor all the accused in the above case were absconding at the time of filing the present application.

¶36

In the result, I find no merit in this application and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.

¶37

Ani/

¶38

Sd/-V.K. MOHANAN, JUDGE. /true copy/

¶39

P.S. To Judge

Jancy Benny v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jancy Benny 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

Mrs.Ashalatha.Y.K Vs State of Kerala

Suprabashg C.G Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Christin P Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Hariprasad K @ Hareesh Vs Nazima Sheikh

Arun.a.S @ Subash Vs State of Kerala