Partly allowed

Sheela Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2016Bail Appl./3340/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application for the first petitioner in a cheating case. While a related quashing petition was partly allowed and proceedings against the second petitioner were quashed, the first petitioner's proceedings continued. Bail was granted subject to surrender and execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for the first petitioner subject to surrender within two weeks, execution of a bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties, and compliance with investigation conditions.

Sheela Thomas 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

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/20TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3340 of 2015

¶6

CRIME NO. 1634/2014 OF PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1. SHEELA THOMAS, AGED 40 YEARS, ADVOCATE, D/O.THOMAS, NEAR SIVA TEMPLE, CENTRAL BAZAR, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SHINE THOMAS, AGED 46 YEARS, IRUPPAKKAT, THEKKE BAZAR, PAYYANNUR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶17

B.A.No.3340 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2016

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶21

The petitioners are husband and wife. They have been arrayed as the accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.1634/2014 of Payyannur police station. The aforesaid crime has been registered for offence punishable under S.420 r/w S.34 of the IPC.

¶22

The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioners had induced the de facto complainant to invest money in real estate business assuring profit and believing the words of the petitioners, a sum of Rs.26,15,000/- was handed over. They did not act in terms of the agreement

¶23

B.A.No.3340 of 2015 : 2 :

¶24

and it is alleged that the petitioners had guilty intent from the inception as is borne out from the facts and circumstances. According to the de facto complainant, she was fraudulently induced by the petitioners and wrongful loss was caused to her.

¶25

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The petitioners had also preferred

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.3091/2015 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash all further proceedings in the aforesaid crime. The said petition was partly allowed and the proceedings as against the 2^nd petitioner was quashed. In view of the above, no reliefs are required to be granted in this application in so far as the second petitioner is concerned.

¶28

In so far as the first petitioner is concerned, it was

¶29

B.A.No.3340 of 2015 : 3 :

¶30

ordered that the investigation should proceed and go to its logical culmination. However, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts of the instant case as the case rests mainly on documentary evidence.

¶31

In the result, the application is allowed in so far as the first petitioner is concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i. The first petitioner shall, within a period of two weeks, surrender before the investigating officer and submit herself for interrogation. Thereafter, she shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. In that event, she shall be released on bail.

¶33

ii. If the investigating officer requires

¶34

B.A.No.3340 of 2015 : 4 :

¶35

the attendance of the first petitioner on any further occasion than the days mentioned above, he can direct the 1^st petitioner in writing to appear and cooperate with the investigation.

¶36

iii. The first petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses. She shall not meddle in any manner with the investigation.

¶37

iv. If any of the conditions above are violated, the Magistrate having jurisdiction is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court.

¶38

This application is allowed in part as above.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,

JUDGE.

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Sheela Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Thomas 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

Mohammed Rafi Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Shinto Vs State of Kerala and Another

Praveen A.R Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Valsarajan Vs State of Kerala

Radhadevi Vs State of Kerala