Allowed

Sivalingaiah v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jun 2016Bail Appl./4195/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of forgery and cheating. The court imposed strict conditions requiring surrender for interrogation and execution of a bail bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail upon surrender for interrogation by July 14, 2016, execution of a Rs. 25,000 bond with two Kerala-based sureties, and adherence to strict conditions against tampering.

Sivalingaiah 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

THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/9TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4195 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 23/2016 OF WALAYAR POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SIVALINGAIAH, S/O. GANGAIAH, AGED 58 YEARS, ASIAN TOURIST CORPORATION, NO. 21/8, AZZEMA BUILDING, A.V. ROAD, KALASIPALAYAM, BANGALORE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMESH

¶10

SRI. N. ANOOPKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.

¶13

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶14

WALAYAR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶18

¶19

B.A. No. 4195 of 2016

¶20

- - - - Dated 30^th June, 2016

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

1.The petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in Crime No.23 of 2016 of Walayar Police Station registered inter alia for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC.

¶24

2.The petitioner is the registered owner of the tourist bus bearing registration No. KA 01 AB 3726. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner with a view to evade tax used forged and fabricated permit and temporary permit of the State of Andra Pradesh and used it for the tourist bus bearing registration No. KA 01 AB 3744 which was registered at Karnataka.

¶25

3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well was the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner is the owner of two tourist buses bearing aforementioned registration numbers. Both the buses were purchased on 23.12.2015. The vehicles were sent for painting work and the mechanic inadvertently had fixed the wrong number plates in both the

¶27

B.A. No. 4195 of 2016 -2-

¶28

buses. It is also pointed out that the registration certificate in respect of both the buses are the same and only the permit and temporary permit was different.

¶29

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions of the learned counsel and submitted that investigation revealed that with intent to evade tax, the petitioner had used the permits as well as temporary permits and the act of the petitioner is extremely serious and would result in loss of money to the exchequer. It is submitted that this is a case in which interrogation is required and if anticipatory bail is granted, the same would impede the investigation. It is also submitted that this Court had granted anticipatory bail to the previous owner of the bus who was also arrayed as the 1^st accused as per order dated 12.2.2016 in B.A.No.614 of 2016 on the ground that he had sold the vehicle to the petitioner herein.

¶30

6.I have considered the rival submissions.

¶31

7.It is borne out from Annexure A2 and A3 that the petitioner had purchased the buses only on 23.12.2015 and the offence was detected on 7.1.2016. It does not appear from the above

¶32

B.A. No. 4195 of 2016 -3-

¶33

that the petitioner was engaged in a continuous course of conduct for the purpose of evading tax. In so far as the permits are concerned, it is submitted at the bar that the permits and temporary permits obtained from any of the southern states are valid.

¶34

8.Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and materials available from the case diary, it is felt that the petitioner can be granted relief subject to stringent conditions.

¶35

1.The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 14.7.2016 who after interrogation shall produce him before the learned Magistrate concerned and if it is found necessary that custodial interrogation is required, he shall file necessary application before the learned Magistrate.

¶36

2.The learned Magistrate before whom the petitioner is produced, shall after considering the application for custodial interrogation, if any, filed by the Investigating Officer shall thereafter release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. The sureties shall be from the State of Kerala.

¶37

B.A. No. 4195 of 2016

¶38

-4-

¶39

3.The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶40

4.The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper the evidence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶41

If any of the above conditions are violated, the reliefs granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled and the learned Magistrate is empowered to take all such steps as are available to him under law.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶44

kp/-30.6.16

Sivalingaiah v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivalingaiah 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

Vittal Rai Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Anees Vs State of Kerala

Benny Vs State of Kerala

John M.Kuriakose Vs the Superintendent of Police

Subash Chand Jain Vs State of Kerala

V.K.Lekha Surendran Vs P.v.Sreedharan