Allowed

Ramesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2015Bail Appl./485/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Ramesh, accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust regarding a chitty business. The Court allowed the application on condition of furnishing security and executing a bond.

What did the court decide?

The application was allowed; the petitioner was directed to release on bail upon executing a bond for Rs.25,000 and furnishing security for Rs.2,62,000 with two sureties.

Ramesh Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/26TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 485 of 2015 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1934/2014 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, TRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER :

¶8

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

¶9

RAMESH, AGED 35 YEARS,S/O RAVEENDRAN, CHEMBANDAN HOUSE, VADANAPPILLY BEACH, VADANAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS SMT.E.U.DHANYA

¶11

RESPONDENT :

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REMA R.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶18

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

¶19

B.A.No. 485 of 2015

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2015

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offences

¶25

under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. He was Managing Director of 'Akshaya Enterprises' which conducted chitty. He failed to pay any amount to the subscribers and closed down the business.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has already paid the amounts due to about 3000 subscribers. The first informant is allegedly a defaulter. The amount claimed by him is Rs.2,61,160/-. I think a direction to the petitioner to furnish security for the said amount is sufficient.

¶28

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶29

The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶30

B.A.No.485 of 2015

¶31

::2::

¶32

He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if he is so required by him in writing.

¶33

He shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶34

He shall furnish security in the form of Demand Draft or Bank Guarantee or Immovable property for Rs.2,62,000/(Rupees two lakhs sixty two thousand only). If the security is immovable property, he shall produce the original title deed, which shall not be returned to him till the conclusion of the trial.

¶35

He shall not get himself involved in any other criminal case while he is on bail.

¶36

He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶40

DST

¶41

//True copy//

¶42

P.A. To Judge

Ramesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh 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

Pradeep K Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Abu Vs State of Kerala

Leelamma Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh.P Vs State through the Station House Officer

Madaswamy Vs State of Kerala