Allowed

Giri Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2016Bail Appl./552/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner accused of forgery and cheating. The court held custodial interrogation was not essential as the forged document was in the possession of a third party, though the petitioner must undergo interrogation within ten days.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed subject to conditions including appearance before Investigating Officer within ten days for interrogation, execution of bond with two sureties, and cooperation with investigati

Giri Nair 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/20TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 552 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1650/2015 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

GIRI NAIR AGED 75 YEARS

¶9

SON OF LATE K.N NAIR, 11/442(3), 1^st FLOOR SAI COMPLEX, PENSION STREET, PALAKKAD

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR : SMT. R.REMA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶16

=================

¶17

B.A.No.552 of 2016

¶18

=================

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1650 of 2015 of Palakkad South Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein, who is claimed to be a member of All Kerala Chemists and Druggists Association, had forged a letter purported to have been issued by the Association, as revealed from Annexure-AII. It is a letter allegedly written by the Association and produced by the petitioner before the manufacturer of a drug for the purpose of obtaining his dealership. Pursuant to the complaint, crime was registered and police is investigating. The specific allegation of the Association is that the letter head on which the letter was prepared was a forged document and was printed in a computer within the control of the petitioner herein. On the other hand, petitioner contends that he is cited as a witness in a matter pending before the Competition Commission and present attempt of the Association is to force him to give evidence in favour of the

¶23

B.A. 552 /16

¶24

¶25

Association. Learned counsel relies on Annexure-AI. That does not indicate as to the subject matter involved therein, except that, he had summoned to appear before the Competition Commission.

¶26

The document which is alleged to have been forged is something on record. Learned counsel for the Association as well as learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for the purpose of identifying the process of forgery, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential. It appears that there are some disputes between the Association as well as the petitioner herein. The document allegedly forged is one which has been produced before the third party and evidently, the third party is the custodian of the document which is purported to have been forged. Having regard to these facts and also the pending disputes between the Association and the petitioner, I feel that this is not a fit case wherein custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential. Hence, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶27

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

¶28

B.A. 552 /16

¶29

¶30

fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶31

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation.

¶32

(iii) He shall co-operate with the investigation which includes production of all the documents or copies thereof which are referred to in the complaint given by the Association and which are found to be in the possession of the petitioner by the investigating agency in the process of investigation and are essential for progress of investigation, for which a demand is made by the Investigating Officer.

¶33

(iv) He shall not get involved in any other identical offence and shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the de facto complainant or his witnesses.

¶34

The anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶37

Sbna/9/2/16

¶38

True Copy

¶39

P A to Judge

Giri Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Giri Nair 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

Mathews Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Bijeesh Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Vs State of Kerala

Ananthu Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Prabhavathy Vs State of Kerala