Disposed

Shameera Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2015Bail Appl./1538/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to accused petitioners in a cheating case. They must surrender for interrogation within two weeks, cooperate with investigation, and not influence witnesses. A bond of 25,000 rupees with two sureties each is required.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to surrender, execute bond, and not interfere with witnesses or investigation.

Shameera Santhosh Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1538 of 2015 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 192/2015 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTITTA DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED A1 & A2 :

¶8

-----------------------------------------------

¶9

1. SHAMEERA SANTHOSH, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. SANTHOSH, VANIAKKATTU VEETTIL, PARAKKODU MURI ADOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. LATHA AMMAL P., AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. SURESH, PANKKODE P.O., ADOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.S.V.PREMAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶12

P.S.ANJU

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

----------------------

¶15

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

¶16

*ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED :

¶17

*2. REMA DEVI, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. SELVAKUMAR, NEDUMKULANJI, PADANILAM, NOORANADU * ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 01/04/2015 IN CRL.M.A. 2989/2015 IN BA 1538/2015

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R. REMA ADDL.R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶22

B.A.No.1538 of 2015

¶23

Dated this the 26^th Day of November, 2015

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶26

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Adoor Police Station Crime No.192/2015, registered for the offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶27

Code. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail.

¶28

The prosecution case in short is that, the petitioners as Secretary and Treasurer of a Women Welfare Society, made the people believe that they could create self-help groups by collecting money from the members and also promised to the members to arrange loans from nationalized banks. It is further alleged that and in that pretext they collected money and cheated the public.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the de facto complainant and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not done any cheating.

¶31

B.A.No.1538 of 2015 -:2:-

¶32

Documents have been produced before the court to show that they have lawfully conducted the business.

¶33

Learned counsel for the de facto complainant opposed the bail application contending that the petitioners have no consistent case. Even according to the the their own document, they have collected various amounts from various beneficiaries. The learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application contending that the petitioners have committed the offences.

¶34

Considering the nature of allegations and the requirement of their presence for investigation I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with the following conditions:

¶35

(a) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of 'two weeks' from today and submit themselves for interrogation. Thereafter, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for ` 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with two solvent sureties each

¶36

B.A.No.1538 of 2015 -:3:-

¶37

for the like sum to the satisfaction of the

¶38

Investigating Officer.

¶39

(b) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of interrogation.

¶40

¶41

(d) The petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶42

(e) The petitioners shall not in any manner interfere or meddle with the investigation.

¶43

(f) Petitioners shall not, during the period of

¶44

this bail get involved in any offence.

¶45

In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶48

AVS

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

P.A. TO JUDGE

Shameera Santhosh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameera Santhosh 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

Rejeendran @ Biju Vs State of Kerala

Shivashanmugham Vs State of Kerala

Suhara.a Vs State of Kearala

Gokul Vs the State of Kerala

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala

Noble Mathew Vs State of Kerala