Allowed

G.Srinivasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2016Bail Appl./3213/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the Court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner accused of unauthorized employee recruitment under the Emigration Act and cheating under IPC. The Court allowed the bail subject to reporting conditions and financial sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two solvent sureties of Rs. 40,000 each. Conditions imposed: report on Saturdays for two months, do not leave the limits, and do not contact material witnesses.

G.Srinivasan Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3213 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S) :

¶8

G.SRINIVASAN,

¶9

AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.N.GAJENDRAN, PROPRIETOR ANUSH CONSULTANTS, HAVING OFFICE AT 148, 1ST FLOOR, SIXTH CROSS STREET, OPPOSITE L.P.SCHOOL, SOUTH GIRI NAGAR, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE :

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 031, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.T.Y.LALIZA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.3213 of 2016 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 12^th July, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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.352 of 2016 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, registered under Section 10 read with 24 (1)(a) (b) of Emigration Act. Later, Section 420 I.P.C was also added by the police during investigation.

¶21

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, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶22

The prosecution allegation prominently is that, the petitioner herein recruited employees unauthorisedly.

¶23

B.A No.3213 of 2016

¶24

¶25

It is not known who exactly was in fact cheated by the petitioner herein. The crime was suo motu registered by the police on the basis of the search conducted at the business premises of the petitioner. In the absence of any definite material to show that anybody was in any manner cheated by the petitioner herein, a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C may not be possible. The F.I.R shows that the prominent allegation, is recruitment of employees without authority. The said offence under Section 24 (1) (a) (b) of the Emigration Act is bailable under the law.

¶26

In the result, this application 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 40,000/-₹ (Rupees Fourty 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.352 of 2016 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that:

¶27

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am

¶28

B.A No.3213 of 2016

¶29

¶30

on all Saturdays for a period of two months.

¶31

b) The petitioner shall not leave the

¶32

limits of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station for a period of two months.

¶33

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶34

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶35

¶36

/True copy/ P.S to Judge

G.Srinivasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Srinivasan 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

Anilkumar @ Anil Vs State of Kerala

P.Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Rappai Vs State of Kerala

Rahul.M. Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala