Allowed

Latha Komalan @ Latha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3084/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed pre-arrest bail to the sole accused under Section 438 CrPC. The court found investigation practically complete and detention unnecessary, granting bail on a bond with sureties and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond with two solvent sureties for ₹25,000 each, to report before IO on Fridays for two months.

Latha Komalan @ Latha 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

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3084 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 134/2016 OF UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶8

LATHA KOMALAN, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.KOMALAN, RESIDING AT VAYARANMARUTHY MEMURIYIL HOUSE, KOONAMKARA P.O., PERUNADU VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.3084 of 2016

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Dated this the 6^th June, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein, the sole accused, seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.134 of 2016 of the Upputhara Police Station registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The prosecution case is that the petitioner

¶23

herein had arranged some job for the wife of the de facto complainant in Saudi Arabia through one agency called Galaxy Travels. It appears that the petitioner was only an agent. The job was provided by Galaxy Travels, and the complainant's wife even joined the employment in Saudi Arabia on 21.2.2016. But later she could not continue the job due to some health problems. Her grievance is that when she wanted to come back, the accused did not in any manner help her to come back. It is not known how this will constitute cheating under Section 420 I.P.C. The petitioner

¶24

B.A No.3084 of 2016

¶25

¶26

is not the person who provided job, and there is no allegation that the petitioner had in any manner cheated the complainant without providing the job as offered, or by extracting more money dishonestly. If the complainant's wife could not continue the job there, or if she wanted to come back, she could have taken necessary steps there, or she could have even contacted the Galaxy Travels, who provided job abroad. Instead, she made a complaint against the petitioner herein. It is not known how this complaint alleging cheating can be sustained as against the petitioner herein. I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary at all, and even without such interrogation necessary materials on the given allegations can be collected by the police.

¶27

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, she will definitely obstruct the proper and effective

¶28

B.A No.3084 of 2016

¶29

¶30

investigation.

¶31

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of

¶32

the materials including the case diary and the report of the Investigating Officer, I find that investigation in the crime is practically over, and that the petitioner can be granted pre arrest bail. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation.

¶33

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only). each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of her arrest in connection with Crime No.134 of 2016 of the Upputhara Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶34

a) The petitioner shall report before

¶35

the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am

¶36

on all Fridays for a period of two months.

¶37

P.UBAID

¶38

¶39

JUDGE /True copy/ P.S to Judge

¶40

B.A No.3084 of 2016

¶41

Latha Komalan @ Latha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Latha Komalan @ Latha 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

Viswanathan K. Vs the State of Kerala

A. Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.a. Vs State of Kerala

Jaladharan Vs State of Kerala

Shahitha Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Kumar Vs State of Kerala