Allowed

Shaju.K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016Bail Appl./760/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application sought pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in a cheating and forgery case. The court granted bail, finding that the investigation was practically complete and custodial interrogation was no longer necessary as non-custodial reporting would suffice.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on bond of two sureties for ₹40,000/- each, with conditions to report weekly and not leave limits or contact witnesses.

Shaju.K Vs the 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 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 760 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1589/2015 OF TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAJU.K, S/O.MOHANAN,AGED 37 YEARS, KUNNATH HOUSE, THENHIPALAM P.O, PADATTAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.R.RANJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,

¶14

*ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED

¶15

*ADDL.R3: PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, POONADATHIL HOUSE, THAYILAKKADAVU, MOONIYOOR PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

*ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/2/16 IN CRL.MA.NO.1804/2016 IN BA.760/2016.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R.REMA ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

P.UBAID, J.

¶21

- - - - B.A.No. 760 of 2016

¶22

- - - - Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2016

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under

¶25

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No. 1589 of 2015 of the Tirurangadi Police Station registered under Sections 406 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

It appears that the transaction alleged in this case will have mainly civil consequences, if at all the allegations are true. It is not known how it will constitute the offence under Sections 406 or 465 of IPC. Practically, it is a business dispute.

¶27

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

¶28

B.A.No. 760 of 2016

¶29

-2-

¶30

part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶31

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of

¶32

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 prearrest bail. I find that even without custodial interrogation of the petitioner, necessary materials for prosecution can be collected by the Police. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically.

¶33

In the result, this petition for pre arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is/are ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for ₹40,000/- (Rupees Fourty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his/their arrest in connection

¶34

B.A.No. 760 of 2016

¶35

-3-

¶36

with Crime No. 1589 of 2015 of the Tirurangadi Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶37

a) The petitioner shall report before the

¶38

investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on

¶39

all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

¶40

b) The petitioner shall not leave the

¶41

limits of Tirurangadi Police Station for a period of two months.

¶42

c) The petitioner shall not in any

¶43

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

Sd/- P.UBAID

JUDGE

//True copy//

P.A. to Judge

Shaju.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaju.K v. the 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

Madanan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Midhun R. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Siyad H Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Remya Vs State of Kerala

Sadasivan Pillai Vs State of Kerala