Dismissed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Sept 2015Bail Appl./4941/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. connected to an offence under Section 420 IPC for cheating via pledging spurious gold. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing repeated fraud. The court dismissed the application, refusing bail due to the nature of the offence and the investigation stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner not granted bail.

Vinod Kumar 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 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/12TH BHADRA, 1937

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO. 4941 OF 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP. NO.5503/2015 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, TIRUR DATED 23-07-2015

¶7

CRIME NO.649/2015 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶9

VINOD KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, EDASSERI HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR SMT.AMBIKA NAIR SRI.HARIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUTTIPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682032.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y. LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶17

Bail Appl. No.4941 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 3^rd day of September 2015

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petition filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.649

¶22

of 2015 of Kuttipuram Police station registered for the offence under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case in short is that on 10.07.2015 at 11.00 hours, the petitioner availed loans from Kuttipuram branch of Malappuram District Co-operative Bank by dishonestly pledging spurious gold.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application contending that the petitioner has pledged spurious gold 106 times in the bank and availed amounts.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if that be so, the Police should have seized the records to show the availment of loan.

¶26

Bail Appl. No.4941 of 2015 2

¶27

Considering the nature of offence and the present stage of investigation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶28

In the result, the bail application is dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE

¶31

/ True Copy /

¶32

¶33

P.A. To Judge

Vinod Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.K.Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman @ Ustad Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Shino Mathew Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Thomas Vs Cbcid, Kozhikode

Satheesan @ Satheesan Menon Vs State of Kerala