Allowed

Anil Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jan 2014Bail Appl./8687/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to petitioners accused under the Money Lenders Act and Penal Code. Bail was allowed on executing a bond with sureties subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and prohibition of unauthorized money lending.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing a bond for Rs. 15,000/- each with two sureties each, subject to conditions regarding investigation cooperation and licensing.

Anil Kumar, 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 THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014/2ND MAGHA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8687 of 2013 ()

¶6

(CRIME NO. 1345/2013 OF PARAVOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM)

¶7

PETITIONERS/2 & 3 ACCUSED:-

¶8

1. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, THARANI, KURUMANDAL,PARAVOOR, KOLLAM.

¶9

2. THARA AGED 26 YEARS,

¶10

W/O ANIL KUMAR, THARANI, KURUMANDAL,

¶11

PARAVOOR, KOLLAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:-

¶14

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

¶15

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶16

PARAVOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADIR

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

KKS

¶20

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶21

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

¶22

Bail Application No. 8687 of 2013 ============================ Dated this the 22^nd day of January, 2014

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No. 1345 of

¶25

2014 of the Paravoor police station for the offences

¶26

punishable under Sec.420 of the Penal Code and Secs. 13,

¶27

17, 18A and 18B of the Money Lenders Act, apprehend

¶28

arrest and have filed this application.

¶29

Application is opposed. It is submitted that

¶30

petitioners are engaged in money lending business without

¶31

license and that the de facto complainant had borrowed

¶32

Rs. 10 Lakhs from the petitioners to settle liability of the first accused. In spite of the de facto complainant paying

¶33

that amount, the petitioners are demanding huge amount.

¶34

B.A No.8687 of 2013

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel submits that the de facto

¶37

complainant had borrowed Rs. 20 lakhs from the petitioners on 16.12.2011 and issued two cheques for Rs. 10 lakhs each

¶38

for the discharge of that liability. The de facto complainant

¶39

repaid Rs. 10 lakhs after 1 year and caused a notice to be issued claiming that he has discharged liability and demanding return of the cheques. To that, the petitioners have sent suitable reply. Learned counsel submits that

¶40

apart from the said transaction, the petitioners are not

¶41

having any money transaction with any other person. The

¶42

said submission of the learned counsel is recorded.

¶43

Having regard to the above, I am inclined to think

¶44

that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.

¶45

Hence I am inclined to grant relief.

¶46

Application is allowed as under:

¶47

1. Petitioners shall report to the officer investigating Crime

¶48

B.A No.8687 of 2013

¶49

¶50

No. 1345 of 2014 of the Paravoor police station on 28.01.2014 at 10:00 a.m. for interrogation.

¶51

1. In case interrogation is not completed that day, the said officer can direct the petitioners to appear before him on any other date/dates and time which they shall comply.

¶52

1. Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶53

1. Petitioners shall produce all relevant records as may be required by the investigating officer which are in their custody, control and possession.

¶54

1. In case the petitioners are arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day.

¶55

1. On such production, the petitioners shall be released if not required to be detained otherwise on their executing bond for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions:-

¶56

a) Petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶57

b) Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶58

c) Petitioners shall not intimidate/influence the

¶59

B.A No.8687 of 2013

¶60

¶61

witnesses.

¶62

d) Petitioners shall not engage in money lending business except with authority.

¶63

e) In case of violation of the above conditions, the bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled by moving application before the learned magistrate by the investigating officer as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 Supreme Court 100).

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶66

//true copy//

¶67

P.A. to Judge

¶68

Smv

Anil Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Nirmala Vs P.Shylaja

Citra Fules Ltd. Vs M/S. Lab & General Exports Pvt. Ltd.

Krishnankutty Vs Arunkumar

K. Zeenath Beevi Vs Suseela Devi T.

Abdul Rasheed Vs Jabbar Abdul Rahman

Ahammed Vs Mammathu