Allowed

Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2016Bail Appl./1471/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC to the petitioner accused of cheating offences. The court relied on a prior order granting bail to co-accused, citing changed circumstances. The applicant was directed to surrender within ten days for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to surrender before Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation; if arrested before interrogation, produce before Magistrate for regular bail applications.

Ashok 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/26TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1471 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO.645/2010 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT (CBCID CRIME NO.38/CR/EOW1/2011).

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/A6 :

¶8

ASHOK KUMAR, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.VIKRAMAN NAIR, VADAKUMTHEZHAKHI, SANTHABHAVAN, KULATHOOR, UCHAKKADA, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2016, ALONG WITH BA.NO.1482 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶16

- - - - B.A.Nos.1471, 1482, 1597, 1598 & 1610 of 2016

¶17

- - - - Dated 16^th March, 2016

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1.All these applications are filed seeking prearrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

2.The petitioner is accused No.5 in crime No.202 of 2010, 646 of 2010 and 435 of 2010 and also the accused No.6 in crime No.645 of 2010 and 353 of 2010 of the Parassala Police station . All these crimes are seen registered for offence punishable u/s 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The aforesaid crimes are now being investigated by the CBCID as crime Nos. 36 to 40/CR/EOW1/2011.

¶22

3.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner is one of the directors of a society registered under the Charitable Societies Act.

¶23

B.A.1471, 1482, 1597, 1598 & 1610 of 2016

¶24

¶25

The accused persons, in furtherance of common intention is alleged to have induced the de facto complainant in the respective cases to hand over huge sums of money by making false representations. After inducing them to deliver the money, the accused and others are alleged to have cheated the defacto complainants in the respective cases.

¶26

4.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for

¶27

the petitioner as well as the learned Public

¶28

Prosecutor.

¶29

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, based on the order dated 6.5.2011 in B.A.3184 of 2011 has submitted that in respect of accused Nos.1 to 3, directions have been issued by this Court as per order dated

¶30

6.5.2011 and in pursuance to the same, the said accused have surrendered before the

¶31

B.A.1471, 1482, 1597, 1598 & 1610 of 2016

¶32

¶33

courts below and have already been enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that some of the accused had surrendered before the learned Magistrate and they also have been enlarged on bail in the respective cases.

¶34

6.The learned Public Prosecutor does not controvert the assertion of the learned counsel that accused Nos.1 to 4 are now on bail. It has to be noted that the crime was registered as early as in the year 2010. Investigation has proceeded much. Petitioner on an earlier occasion, approached this Court and had moved an application for pre arrest bail which was dismissed.

¶35

7.However, in view of the change of circumstances, I am of the considered view that relief granted to accused Nos.1 to 3 in B.A.3186 of 2011 can be granted in favour of

¶36

B.A.1471, 1482, 1597, 1598 & 1610 of 2016

¶37

¶38

the petitioner as well in all these cases .

¶39

8.In the result, the bail applications are disposed

¶40

of as follows:

¶41

(i). The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days for the purpose of interrogation.

¶42

(ii). In case the petitioner is arrested by the Investigating Officer before interrogation, the petitioner shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate or the Court concerned and permitted to file an application for regular bail. In case, the interrogation of the petitioner is without arresting him, the petitioner shall thereafter appear before the Magistrate or the Court concerned on the same day or on the next day and apply for regular bail. (iii). The Magistrate or the Court on being satisfied that the petitioner had been interrogated by the police shall, after hearing the prosecution as well, consider and dispose of the application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

¶43

(iv). In case the petitioner, while

¶44

¶45

B.A.1471, 1482, 1597, 1598 & 1610 of 2016

¶46

surrendering before the Investigating Officer, has deprived the investigating officer sufficient time for interrogation, the officer shall complete the interrogation even if it is beyond the time limit fixed as above and submit a report to that effect to the Magistrate or the Court concerned. Likewise, the learned Magistrate or the Court also will not be bound by the time limit fixed as above if sufficient time was not available after the production or appearance of the petitioner.

¶47

(v). The learned Magistrate shall consider the long pendency of the matter and also the fact that the investigation has proceeded much while considering the application filed by the petitioner.

¶48

The petitions are thus disposed of .

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. Judge

¶51

Mrcs/16.3.2016

¶52

//True Copy//

¶53

P.S.To Judge

Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Praveen A.R Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Valsarajan Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Lakshmi Vs the State of Kerala

Afsal Vs State of Kerala

Selvaraj Vs State of Kerala