Allowed

Manoharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2014Bail Appl./6847/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a joint bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by accused charged with cheating and criminal conspiracy for purchasing gold without payment, the High Court allowed the application. The Court permitted the accused to deposit the outstanding amount and imposed conditions including weekly reporting and a monetary bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; accused directed to deposit ₹5,00,000/- within seven days and report on Fridays and Tuesdays.

Manoharan 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6847 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO.1785/2014 OF FORT POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. MANOHARAN,AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN,ROYAL,MANACAUD.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695009.

¶9

2. MOHANAN,AGED 51 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN, PRIYA BHAVAN,MANACAUD.P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-695009.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR.G

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EAST FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-6950101.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-12-2014,ALONG WITH BA NO.7350/2014 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶18

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

¶19

B.A. Nos.6847 & 7350 of 2014

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2014

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Petitioners in B.A.No.6847 of 2014 are A1 and A3

¶25

and the petitioner in B.A.No.7350 of 2014 is A2 in Crime No.1785 of 2014 of the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶26

The allegation against the petitioners is that they had hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat M/s.Alapatt Jewellery, Kottakkakom, in pursuance of which, they purchased gold ornaments worth ₹7,00,954/- from the said Jewellery on 09.08.2014 by paying an amount of

¶27

B.A.Nos.6847 & 7350 of 2014

¶28

-: 2 :-

¶29

₹2,00,000/- by falsely representing that the same was for the marriage of the daughter of the 1^st accused and the balance amount would be paid within a month. Thereafter, the petitioners have not cared to pay the balance amount. Enquiries revealed that there was no such marriage of the daughter of the 1^st accused.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the CD.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even though the balance amount to be paid towards the transaction is only ₹3,00,000/-, for getting anticipatory bail in the matter, the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit an amount of ₹5,00,000/-, being claimed by the defacto complainant, before the court below. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the gold ornaments were purchased for the marriage of the daughter of the 2^nd accused and not for the marriage of the daughter of the 1^st accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the

¶32

B.A.Nos.6847 & 7350 of 2014

¶33

-: 3 :-

¶34

representation made by the petitioners at the Jewellery was that the gold ornaments were required for the marriage of the daughter of the 1^st accused. Whatever it is, when the whole balance amount is agreed to be deposited by the petitioners before the court below, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to them.

¶35

In the result, these bail applications are allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioners, is directed to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest on each of them executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶36

(i) The petitioners shall deposit an amount of ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) before the court below within seven days from today.

¶37

(ii) The petitioners shall report before the

¶38

B.A.Nos.6847 & 7350 of 2014

¶39

-: 4 :-

¶40

investigating officer in between 09.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on all Fridays and Tuesdays commencing from 19.12.2014 for a period of three

¶41

months or till the filing of the final report in this

¶42

case, whichever is earlier.

¶43

(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with

¶44

the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶45

(iv) The petitioners shall make themselves

¶46

available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶47

(v) The petitioners shall not involve in any

¶48

offence while on bail.

¶49

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

B. KEMAL PASHA

JUDGE

DSV/16/12

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

Manoharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoharan 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

James Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Ramees Vs the State of Kerala

Binu, S/O.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala

Binu. E Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Rafi Vs State of Kerala