Allowed

Ramesan K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2015Bail Appl./6130/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order granting pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner accused of creating fake vouchers causing loss to the Beverages Corporation. The court imposed strict conditions regarding interrogation, bond execution, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Garanted pre-arrest bail with conditions to surrender for interrogation, execute a bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties, pay deposit, cooperate with investigation, and not tamper with witnesses.

Ramesan K. Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/15TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6130 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 927/2015 OF CHAKKARAKKALLU POLICE SATION , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAMESAN K., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, KIZHAKKINIYIL HOUSE, CHELORA P.O., VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.R.REMA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

¶16

Bail Appl. No.6130 of 2015

¶17

Dated this the 6^th day of November 2015

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Bail application filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.927 of 2015 of Chakkarakkallu Police station registered for the offences punishable under Secs.409, 465, 468, 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case in short is that the petitioner, while working as the shop in charge of the Beverages Corporation outlet at Chakkarakkallu, created fake vouchers and receipts with inflated amounts towards the payment of unloading charges. This happened from 2012 to 30^th June 2015.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. According to the prosecution a loss of Rs.1,39,191/- (Rupees one lakh thirty nine thousand one hundred and ninety one only) was caused to the

¶23

Bail Appl. No.6130 of 2015 2

¶24

Corporation.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the head load workers used to demand higher amounts for working after 6.00 p.m. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner has not created any fabricated vouchers.

¶26

Considering the nature of allegations, pre arrest bail is granted to the petitioner with the following conditions.

¶27

The petitioner shall surrender before

¶28

the investigating officer within a period of two weeks and submit himself for interrogation.

¶29

In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶30

The petitioner shall deposit Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) in the Court below

¶31

Bail Appl. No.6130 of 2015 3

¶32

within a period of two weeks from the date of his release .

¶33

The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when directed by him in writing and shall co-

¶34

operate with the investigation of the case.

¶35

The petitioner shall not intimidate or

¶36

attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court.

Sd/-

A. HARIPRASAD

JUDGE

/ True Copy /

NS/06/11/2015

P.A. To Judge

Ramesan K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesan K. 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

Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Tichu Tomy Vs the State of Kerala

Fareed Khan Ponnelam Vs Station House Officer, Kalpeni Police Station

Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs State of Kerala

K.R. Raju Vs State of Kerala