Allowed

Sheela Babu v. S.I. of Police, Ambalavayal Police Station

Kerala HC20 Aug 2015Bail Appl./495/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed joint bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. challenging the arrest in a criminal case alleging misappropriation. The petitioner was granted bail after admitting to full restitution of misappropriated funds pending the second accused's deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail executing a bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties; second accused to deposit Rs.14,489 within two weeks.

Sheela Babu Vs S.I. of Police, Ambalavayal Police Station — Corruption | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/29TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 495 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 602/2014 OF AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION , WAYANAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

SHEELA BABU, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.BABU MATHEW, RESIDING AT PONTHANANIKKAL HOUSE, NENMENI PO., MADAKARA, CHEERAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.N.DEEPA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. S.I. OF POLICE, AMBALAVAYAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME NO.602/2014 OF AMABALAVAYAL POLICE STATION.), WAYANAD DISTRICT673593.

¶12

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-08-2015, ALONG WITH BA. 583/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

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

¶18

B.A.Nos. 495 & 583 of 2015

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of August, 2015

¶21

C O M M O N O R D E R

¶22

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioners are accused 1 & 2 in Crime No. 602 of 2014

¶24

of Ambalavayal Police Station. They are accused of having committed the offences under Sections 120(A), 120(B), 405 and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The prosecution case is that the first accused was the Secretary of a firm and the second accused its Managing Partner. It is alleged that they have misappropriated Rs.6,32,588/-

¶26

Heard.

¶27

It is admitted by both sides that the first accused has

¶28

remitted the whole amount so far as she is concerned. The

¶29

second accused is yet to deposit Rs.14,489/-. In these circumstances, I am inclined to grant their prayer.

¶30

In the result, these applications are allowed.

¶31

1)The petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are

¶32

B.A.Nos. 495 & 583 of 2015

¶33

-: 2 :-

¶34

arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶35

2)Petitioner in Bail Application No. 583 of 2015 shall deposit Rs.14,489/- (Rupees fourteen thousand four hundred and eighty nine only) in the trial court within two weeks, failing which the Investigating Officer shall file an application before the court concerned to cancel the bail.

¶36

3)They shall surrender their passports before the lower court concerned or if they do not have one, they shall file affidavits to that effect within five days of their release.

¶37

4)They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court of enquiry or trial court, as the case may be.

¶38

5)They shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation if they are so required by him in writing.

¶39

6)They shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶40

7)They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶41

8)They shall not get themselves involved in any other criminal case while they are on bail.

¶42

9)They shall co-operate with investigation of the case.

¶43

If the petitioners surrender before the Magistrate this order is not applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶44

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶45

B.A.Nos. 495 & 583 of 2015

¶46

-: 3 :-

¶47

learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance

¶48

with the law.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶51

DST

¶52

//True copy// P.A. To Judge

Sheela Babu v. S.I. of Police, Ambalavayal Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Babu v. S.I. of Police, Ambalavayal Police Station

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

Naufal Vs State of Kerala

Kiran David Vs State of Kerala

Sujin Murali @ Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

T.C.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Sujatha Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala