Allowed

Suryalayam Reveendran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2617/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants interim bail to the petitioner, arraigned later as the 3rd accused in a cheating case, noting insufficient evidence against him. The court orders the investigation officer to explain his role and submit seized documents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed bail, to be executed with sureties, reporting on alternate Saturdays and maintaining no contact with material witnesses.

Suryalayam Reveendran 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 P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/31ST JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2617 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.988/2010 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

SURYALAYAM RAVEENDRAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O CHELLAPPAN, GOD SADANAM, SUN NAGAR, VENGODE P.O., VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SRI.K.NIRMALAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.2617 of 2016

¶16

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

¶17

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein was subsequently arraigned as the 3^rd accused in Crime No.988/2010 of the Kollam West Police Station, registered under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered long back on 14.12.2010, but the petitioner herein was arraigned much later on the ground that he had also some involvement in the acts of offence alleged against the others. Initially the crime was registered only against one accused.

¶20

The prosecution case is that the first accused dishonestly collected huge amount from various persons on the promise of a good certificate course in Paramedical Technology when he had no such authority or registration for conducting any such course or for issuing any certificate. As against the first accused some materials could be collected by the police during investigation. He was arrested during investigation, and was later released on bail.

¶21

B.A No.2617 of 2016 2

¶22

On 31.5.2016 this Court directed the

¶23

investigating officer to report on what material exactly this petitioner was arraigned as 3^rd accused. Accordingly the investigating officer has filed a report in court. The said report does not contain any satisfactory explanation as to how this petitioner was arraigned as accused. The report only contains a statement that this petitioner also had active participation. It is not known or explained how his active participation was. Again, on 15.6.2016 I directed the investigating officer to report whether any false document or certificate singed or issued by this petitioner could be seen or seized by him during investigation. There is no such report from the investigating officer. This means that he has not so far been able to seize any such document containing the seal or signature of this petitioner. Whether this petitioner had any active role or complicity in the alleged transaction is a matter for decision on trial. It will suffice that he is directed to report before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation.

¶24

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for 30,000/- (Rupees₹

¶25

B.A No.2617 of 2016

¶26

¶27

thirty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.988/2010 of the Kollam West Police Station, Kollam. Bail is granted on condition that:

¶28

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 12 noon on all alternate Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶29

b) The petitioner shall not have any

¶30

contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Suryalayam Reveendran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryalayam Reveendran 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

Pushpakaran Vs State of Kerala

Aji.T.B Vs the State of Kerala

Vinod Vs State of Kerala

Prathyush Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Haneeswaran.M.v Vs State of Kerala

Shakthil T.T Vs State of Kerala