Allowed

Ramakrishna Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2014Bail Appl./8095/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an FIR registered for cheating and moneylending offences. The court held the matter was essentially civil in nature with pending suits, making custodial interrogation unnecessary. Bail was granted subject to sureties and specific conditions including regular reporting to the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties and conditions including weekly reporting to the investigating officer.

Ramakrishna Babu Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8095 of 2014 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 3118/2014 OF THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶8

RAMAKRISHNA BABU, AGED 53, RESIDING AT C.P. 8/318, ARAPPURA HOUSE CHIRAYINKAL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN

¶10

SMT.M.A.ZOHRA

¶11

SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, EERNAKULAM-682031.

¶16

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶17

TOWN POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680020.

¶18

3. FOUSIA,

¶19

W/O. ABDUL KALAM, TC 15/377/5, CHIYYARAM P.O.

¶20

THRISSUR-680001.

¶21

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶25

B.A. No.8095 of 2014

¶26

............................................................... Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2014

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Application filed under Section 438 of the Code of

¶29

Criminal Procedure.

¶30

According to the petitioner, he is apprehending

¶31

arrest in connection with Crime No.3118 of 2014 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station.

¶32

The allegation against the petitioner is that towards an amount of ₹2.25 crores due to him from the defacto complainant, the defacto complainant executed a sale deed in respect of 40 cents of property and a building thereon in Survey No. 357/2 in Chiyyaram Village in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, an amount of ₹25 lakhs was repaid. The balance amount due was only ₹2 crores. As

¶33

B.A.No.8095 of 2014

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

the petitioner was willing to re-convey the property on the payment of ₹2 crores, an agreement to that effect was entered into. Still the amount has not been paid and the reconveyance has not been obtained. A private complaint was filed by the defacto complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur, which was forwarded to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, and consequently a crime has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 7 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶37

counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶38

On hearing all the parties, it has come out that the matter is more or less of a civil nature. Civil suits are pending at present. It seems that even prior to the filing of the private complaint, the petitioner had instituted a civil suit as O.S.No.655/2014 before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur in

¶39

B.A.No.8095 of 2014

¶40

-: 3 :-

¶41

respect of the property. Considering all the above, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the continued investigation of the case. Matters being so, this Court is of the view that this is fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶42

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 ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh 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:-

¶43

(i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 09.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on all Mondays

¶44

and Thursdays commencing from 15.12.2014 for a period of three months.

¶45

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence

¶46

B.A.No.8095 of 2014

¶47

-: 4 :-

¶48

or influence witnesses.

¶49

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for

¶50

interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶51

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence

¶52

while on bail.

¶53

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

¶54

bail.

¶55

Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE

¶56

ul/-

¶57

[True copy] P.S. to Judge

Ramakrishna Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna Babu 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

Sunil Vs State of Kerala

Rekharaj Vs State of Kerala

Rekharaj Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Unaise Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Vengara

Kumaresan Pilla Vs State of Kerala

P.Soorya Das Vs the State of Kerala