Allowed

Babukuttan v. State Ofkerala

Kerala HC9 Sept 2015Bail Appl./4402/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner accused in a cheating attempt case, granting one week to surrender for interrogation and imposing standard conditions regarding investigation cooperation and non-flight.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions including surrender within two weeks, bond execution, and restriction from leaving Kerala state.

Babukuttan Vs State Ofkerala — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/18TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4402 of 2015

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

BABUKUTTAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.PAPPACHAN, PANCHAKULATHU BETHEL, MANAPPALLY SOUTH, S.R.P MARKET, KARUNAGAPALLY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

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

¶11

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶12

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

3. REGUNATHAN K., AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUKRISHNAN, DIRECTOR CAP STONE GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHAYALODE P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KNRA 40, T.C.1786/1, KARAMANA MURIYIL, THAIKKADU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695 002.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04.08.2015 IN CRL.M.A.NO.7265 OF 2015.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶19

B.A.No.4402 of 2015

¶20

Dated this the 9^th day of September, 2015

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

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

¶23

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1707 of 2015 of Adoor Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

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

¶25

Prosecution case is that due to previous acquaintance between the de facto complainant and the accused, the de facto complainant, a business man in granite, entrusted money to the petitioner/accused for purchase of land suitable for his business. It is alleged that money received from the de fact o complainant was not paid to the owner of the land with whom an agreement was alleged to have been executed.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that fake documents have been created by the accused and money

¶27

B.A.No.4402 of 2015

¶28

¶29

was not given to the owner of the property is the allegation borne out from the case diary.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was an employee of the de facto complainant and there was a claim for arrears of salary. When a notice was issued demanding arrears of salary the whole trouble started. This contention is strongly denied by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant. According to him, the Bank transaction itself would show that the de facto complainant had passed on more amounts than the claim of arrears of salary made by the petitioner.

¶31

Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with the following conditions:

¶32

(a) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of 'two weeks' from today and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter, on 'three consecutive' days he shall appear before

¶33

B.A.No.4402 of 2015

¶34

¶35

the Investigating Officer for interrogation

¶36

and he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(f) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.

¶42

(g) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. If he does not have a passport, he shall

¶43

B.A.No.4402 of 2015

¶44

¶45

file an affidavit stating that fact.

¶46

(h) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of

¶47

the State of Kerala without permission of the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶48

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.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶51

¶52

/True Copy/

¶53

P.A. to Judge

Babukuttan v. State Ofkerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babukuttan v. State Ofkerala

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

V.T.Pazhani Vs State of Kerala

Faisal Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sharafudeen Vs State of Kerala

Vimal Kumar T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Eldhose Mathews, S/O.Mathews Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala