Dismissed

Sabu C. Anto v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Oct 2016Bail Appl./6967/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused in a case involving pledging fake gold ornaments. The court held that mere repayment of the amount does not exonerate the accused and custodial interrogation was necessary for investigation. The applicant was allowed to surrender within fifteen days.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; liberty granted to surrender within fifteen days.

Sabu C. Anto Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/15TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6967 of 2016 () ----------------------------

¶6

CRIME NO. 1476/2016 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, TRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/APPLICANT/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

SABU C. ANTO

¶9

AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ANTONY, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, P.O.MUNDUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL

¶11

SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

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

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶18

Bail Application No. 6967 of 2016

¶19

Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is the fifth accused in Crime No. 1476 of 2016 of Peramangalam Police Station, Thrissur, registered for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:

¶23

The first accused is the Manager of Mundoor Service Co-operative Bank. Accused Nos. 2 to 9 with the knowledge and consent of the first accused and in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy of all the accused, pledged fake gold ornaments amounting to Rs. 87,80,659/with Mundoor Co-operative Society. It is further alleged that the first accused had committed misappropriation of the gold ornaments valued at Rs. 8,60,000/- pledged with

¶24

-2-

¶25

Bail Application No. 6967 of 2016

¶26

the Bank. The petitioner alone had pledged 28.800 grams of fake gold ornaments with the Bank and obtained Rs. 56,000/- from the Bank. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Heard. Perused the case diary.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner paid back the entire amount to the Bank and in the said circumstances the learned counsel has prayed for granting the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Merely because the amount collected by the petitioner after pledging the gold ornaments had been repaid by the petitioner to the Bank, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be exonerated on that reason. It appears that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. The allegation levelled against

¶29

the petitioner is very serious and grave in nature. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations raised

¶30

-3-

¶31

Bail Application No. 6967 of 2016

¶32

against the petitioner, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation is also necessary to find out as to whether the petitioner is involved in any other offence of similar nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the caser, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C., in favour of the the petitioner will be justified.

¶33

In the result, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days, if so advised. If the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer as stated above, the Investigating Officer shall produce the petitioner before the Magistrate Court concerned on the same day after interrogation. If the petitioner files an application for bail, after giving copy of the application to the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the learned Magistrate shall consider and

¶34

-4-

¶35

Bail Application No. 6967 of 2016

¶36

dispose of the application for bail, as expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law.

¶37

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶38

ani/

Sabu C. Anto v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabu C. Anto 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

Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Faisal T.T. Vs the State of Kerala

Roy J.Vayalat Vs State of Kerala

Ajayan Vs State of Kerala

Manu Vs State of Kerala