Allowed

Ajeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2016Bail Appl./100/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala allowed pre-arrest bail for the fifth accused in a cheating case. The petitioner, initially unimplicated, was added after filing a writ petition for CBCID investigation. The court held custodial interrogation was not warranted and granted bail with six specific conditions, including non-influence of witnesses and prohibition fr

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after interrogation upon executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, subject to six conditions including non-influence of witnesses an

Ajeesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/5TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 100 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1709/2015 OF MANNAR POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/5TH ACCUSED:

¶8

AJEESH KUMAR, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, PANAKANIKANDATHIL, PULIYOOR P.O., MANNAR, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR POLICE STATION, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001.

¶14

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNAR POLICE STATION, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 001.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶19

¶20

B.A. 100 of 2016

¶21

- - - - Dated 25^th January, 2016

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1.This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed u/s

¶25

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶26

2.The petitioner is the 5^th accused in crime No.1709 of 2015 of Mannar police station. The aforesaid crime has been registered alleging offence punishable u/s 420, 465, 471 r/w S.34 of the IPC.

¶27

3.Initially the aforesaid crime was registered against one Geetha Rani and three others based on a statement furnished by one Prajith. The allegation was that the de facto complainant was offered a job

¶28

as Human Resource Executive at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport and further the 1^st

¶29

B.A.100/16

¶30

¶31

accused had received Rs.3,50,000/- from the de facto complainant for the purpose of arranging the said job. According to the de facto complainant, the said amount was handed over to accused Nos.2 to 4 on 26.8.2015 at 11.00 a.m in the premises of the Museum police station, Thiruvananthapuram. It appears that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were arrested on 18.10.2015 and they have been remanded. The news of arrest of accused Nos.1 to 4 appeared in the newspapers and on seeing the same, other persons are alleged to have approached the Mannar police. It is further alleged that one T.N.Sreekumar, Sadasivan Pillai and Sureshkumar have also preferred complaints wherein it is alleged that some money was handed over to the 1^st accused.

¶32

4.It appears that after the registration of the crime against accused Nos.1 to 4, petitioner herein

¶33

B.A.100/16

¶34

¶35

preferred a writ petition before this Court as W.P.(C). 33739 of 2015 seeking for investigation of the matter by the CBCID. Annexure-II is the statement filed by the Sub inspector of Police, Mannar, in the above writ petition . It is submitted by Sri M.Ramaswamy Pillai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner , that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Sub Inspector to inquire into the matter under the supervision of the Circle Inspector of police, Mannar.

¶36

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

6.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶38

that the 6^th accused, Prasannan, is a mason by profession and that it was at his instance that the

¶39

B.A.100/16

¶40

¶41

petitioner received information about accused Nos.1 to 4 . It is also submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner . According to the learned counsel, the filing of the writ petition by the petitioner seeking investigation by a specialized agency would reveal his innocence in the matter .

¶42

7.It is also pertinent to note that the crime was initially registered only against accused Nos.1 to 4 and it was after the filing of the writ petition by the petitioner that he was implicated as an accused in the crime.

¶43

8.After having considered the rival submissions, the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the petitioner and the other circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is not a case where custodial interrogation of

¶44

B.A.100/16

¶45

¶46

the petitioner is warranted. In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶47

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

¶48

ii). The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶49

iii). The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶50

iv). The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or

¶51

B.A.100/16

¶52

¶53

attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶54

v). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶55

vi). The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶56

vii). In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶57

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶58

Mrcs/25.1.2016

¶59

//True Copy//

¶60

P.S To Judge

Ajeesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajeesh 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

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdulla M. Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran K Vs State of Kerala

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Mohandas Vs the State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala