Allowed

V.P.Prasadchandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016Bail Appl./4078/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail against Sections 406, 420, 34 IPC. Court found investigation practically complete and custodial interrogation unnecessary. Bail allowed with reporting condition and non-leave restriction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with sureties; directed to report bi-weekly; restricted from leaving Police Station limits for one month.

V.P.Prasadchandran 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 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4078 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1766/2016 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

V.P. PRASADCHANDRAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. LATE P. KRISHNAN, E6 SOUMYANAGAR, ALINCHUVADU, KAKKANAD.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR, SMT.V.SHYLAJA.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA. R.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

P. UBAID, J.

¶17

--------------------------------------B.A.No.4078 of 2016

¶18

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2016

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under Section

¶20

438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.1766/2016 of the Aluva Police Station, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC. He is the first accused in the crime.

¶21

Cheating in connection with some financial transaction is alleged in the complaint made in this case. On a perusal of the complaint, I find that the allegations are mainly and practically against the 2^nd accused, who availed loan from the complainant. What is alleged is default on her part in making payment in terms of the agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner herein was only a broker in the said transaction. The vehicle was later pledged with somebody else by the 2^nd accused with the help of the petitioner herein. There also no definite offence can be alleged against him. Even according to the complainant he was

¶22

¶23

B.A.No.4078 of 2016

¶24

cheated by the 2^nd accused. The complaint does not show that this petitioner had at any time, or in any manner, cheated the complainant. He was arraigned as accused, because he was a broker in the transaction. This is a criminal prosecution, and not a civil proceeding. Only the person who actually cheated the complainant can be made liable under Section 420 IPC, or else there must be some allegation of abetment or some other constructive liability under criminal law. Such allegations are also not there against the petitioner herein.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.4078 of 2016

¶29

the material witnesses. 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 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 conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶30

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 Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty 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.1766/2016 of the Aluva Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶31

a) The petitioner shall report before the

¶32

investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Wednesdays for a period of two months.

¶33

¶34

B.A.No.4078 of 2016

¶35

b) The petitioner shall not leave the limits

¶36

of Police Station having jurisdiction for a period of one

month.

Sd/-

P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

V.P.Prasadchandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Prasadchandran 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

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Shahul Hameed.C.a Vs State of Kerala

Jaffer Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Alias Ethakka Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Faijas.v.v Vs State of Kerala