Allowed

K.V. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4994/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a petition for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, the 4th accused in a cheating and forgery case, alleged apprehension of custodial harassment. The court found the investigation practically concluded and directed the petitioner to undergo periodic reporting instead of custodial interrogation, while imposing strict bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail on executing a bond with two sureties for Rs. 50,000 each, subject to reporting conditions.

K.V. Gopinathan 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4994 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 1754/2015 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

¶9

K.V. GOPINATHAN, G/O. GANGADHARAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, KAVALENGIL HOUSE, SRK NAGAR, PALAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 005.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

P.UBAID, J.

B.A.No.4994 of 2016

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2016

¶21

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 Crime No.1754/2015 of the Thrissur East Police Station, registered under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120(b) read with 34 IPC. He is the 4^th accused in the crime.

¶22

The prosecution case is that as part of a criminal design to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant, this petitioner and the others created some false documents with respect to the property of the complainant, and thus cheated him by using those documents. The petitioner herein is a licenced document writer. His case is that he had no role in the conspiracy or alleged forgery, and that he had only prepared the documents as a licenced document writer. The accused Nos.3 and 5 were granted pre-arrest bail by this Court. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested during investigation,

¶23

B.A.No.4994 of 2016 2

¶24

and later they were granted regular bail. It appears that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are the main accused in the crime, who created the alleged false documents. Whether the petitioner herein had any vicious role in the alleged transaction except as a document writer, is a matter for probe during trial.

¶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

¶27

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 prearrest bail. I find that the investigating officer has already questioned 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

¶28

B.A.No.4994 of 2016 3

¶29

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.50,000/(Rupees Fifty 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.1754/2015 of the Thrissur East Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that,

¶31

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

¶32

b) The petitioner shall not leave the

¶33

limits of Thrissur East Police Station for a period of two months.

¶34

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner

¶35

B.A.No.4994 of 2016 4

¶36

influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶37

d) The petitioner shall not tamper with

¶38

any document or register connected with the crime.

Sd/P.UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

K.V. Gopinathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V. Gopinathan 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

Mustakim Muhammed Vs S.I of Police

C.K.Shobhana Vs State Ofkerala

Sarath C.P. Vs the Station House Officer, Kalamassery

Raj Mon @ Raju Vs State of Kerala

Shahazad M. Vs State of Kerala

Jopson Vs State of Kerala