Allowed

Arjun M.R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2014Bail Appl./7136/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam allowed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the first accused in a criminal breach of trust case involving misappropriation of funds. The court granted bail with conditions, noting that the principal dispute had been amicably settled between the accused and the de-facto complainant.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed; the petitioner was enlarged on bond for ₹25,000 with two sureties for ₹25,000 each, subject to reporting and other conditions.

Arjun M.R 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 B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7136 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRL.M.C. NO. 1740/2014 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 1249/2014 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :

¶8

ARJUN M.R., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SARASWATHY, MADASSERIL HOUSE, N.S.KARAYOGAM ROAD, PETTA, THRIPUNITHURA.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.ANIL SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.MANU TOM SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

2. C.V. JAYALAL MANAGING PARTNER M/S. CHIRAMEL & COMPANY B 1203, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU INTERNATIONAL STADIUM KALOOR, KOCHI – 682 017.

¶13

*ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 8-10-2014 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 9367/14 IN BA NO. 7136/14.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH V.S. ADDL.R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR SRI.BIMAL PRASAD SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶18

¶19

B.A.No.7136 of 2014

¶20

- - - - -- - - - Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2014

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1249/2014

¶24

of Palarivattom Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 408, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The allegation against the petitioner is that, he along

¶26

with the second accused had misappropriated an amount of ₹ 62,00,000/-, thereby committing criminal breach of trust, while

¶27

they were working as Sales Representatives in Chirammel and Company functioning at Kaloor.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶29

Public Prosecutor. A copy of an agreement has been produced before me, which shows that a settlement has been entered into

¶30

B.A.7136 of 2014 2

¶31

between the petitioner herein and the de-facto complainant, whereby the petitioner herein has agreed to pay an amount of ₹ 34,00,000/- to the de-facto complainant, out of which an amount of ₹10,00,000/-has already been paid and for paying the balance amount, a period of four months time has been granted. It seems that the matters in controversy between the petitioner and the defacto complainant has been amicably settled and presently, the defacto complainant has no complaints towards the petitioner. Matters being so, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶32

In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹25,000/(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest,

¶33

B.A.7136 of 2014 3

¶34

and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays, commencing from 16.12.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶38

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/

¶41

B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶42

¶43

// True Copy //

¶44

PA to Judge

Arjun M.R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun M.R 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

Ramakrishna Babu Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Unaise Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Vengara

Kumaresan Pilla Vs State of Kerala

K.Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Sujatha Binu Vs the State of Kerala