Allowed

Remya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016Bail Appl./3260/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed pre arrest bail to the accused in a cheating case (Section 420 IPC) after finding the investigation practically complete. Directed reporting to the Investigating Officer and restricted movement without finding detention necessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioner released on bail bond with sureties and conditions of reporting to investigating officer and restricted movement.

Remya 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

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3260 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NUMBER NOT KNOWN OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

REMYA, AGED 24 YEARS, W/O. SUBASH, NANDHIYATTU KUNNEL HOUSE, HELIBARIYA. P.O, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.NIMA JACOB.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA. R.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.3260 of 2016

¶16

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

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with a crime registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. She is the second accused in the crime. The first accused is her husband.

¶20

The prosecution case is that under some false promise to arrange some job abroad, the couple received an amount of 1,26,000/- from the complainant. But the job as₹ agreed was not arranged by them, and thus they cheated the complainant.

¶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, she will definitely obstruct

¶22

¶23

B.A No.3260 of 2016

¶24

the proper and effective investigation.

¶25

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of 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 find that the investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. On a perusal of the case diary including the complaint made by the complainant I find that the prominent allegations are against the first accused. The complaint shows that the money was in fact received by the first accused. Definite materials are not there to implicate the petitioner herein, except that she is the wife of the first accused, who received money. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I find that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this

¶26

case. I find that the police has gone a long way with investigation, and has already collected necessary materials. I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other

¶27

B.A No.3260 of 2016 3

¶28

conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶29

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 30,000/- (Rupees₹ thirty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, as the case may be, in case of her arrest. Bail is granted on condition that

¶30

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶31

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits of Kadavanthara Police Station for a period of two months.

¶32

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

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Remya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remya 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

Madanan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Midhun R. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Siyad H Vs State of Kerala

Shaju.K Vs the State of Kerala

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sadasivan Pillai Vs State of Kerala