Allowed

P.J.Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 May 2016Bail Appl./936/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed by the second accused in a cheating case involving 22 lakhs. Finding no definite material for prosecution against the petitioner who merely received funds on behalf of his son, the Court released him on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on a bond with two solvent sureties for 25,000/- each, subject to reporting conditions and no contact with witnesses.

P.J.Sebastian 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

TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2016/10TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 936 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 91/2016 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

P.J.SEBASTIAN, AGED 80 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, POLLOORUTHYKARIYIL HOUSE, E-26, FEDRAL DAR, VENNALA P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶12

*** ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED**

¶13

2. MR.AJU JACOB MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, AGED 36 YEARS, KALATHIL HOUSE, PUNNAMDA, AVALUKUNNU, P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 006.

¶14

*** ADDITIONAL R2 DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.31.3.2016 IN CRL.MA.1706/2016.**

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA R. R2 BY ADVD. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT.NITHYA SASI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No.936 of 2016 ---------------------------------------

¶19

Dated this the 31^st day of May, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein is the second accused in Crime No.91/2016 of the Alappuzha North Police Station involving the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The defacto complainant is one Aju Jacob. His grievance is that a huge amount of 22 lakhs was received by the first₹ accused, on a promise that it would be invested in a business to be started in Dubai, and that profits would be given to him promptly every month. The petitioner herein is the father of the first accused. The police registered the crime on a complaint made by the said Aju Jacob.

¶22

On a reading of the complaint I find that the petitioner herein was arraigned as accused in the complaint just because once he received some amount from the complainant on behalf of his son. The son has also brought application for pre arrest bail. It is pending as B.A No.184/2016. That application will be considered separately. In the given circumstances I find no definite material for a prosecution against the petitioner. The allegations in the complaint are

¶23

B.A No.936 of 2016 2

¶24

prominently against the first accused. His request for pre arrest bail will be considered separately. I feel it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner who just happened to receive the amount without any dishonest intention.

¶25

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 25,000/- (Rupees₹ twenty five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction as the case may be, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No. Crime No.91/2016 of the Alappuzha North Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that

¶26

a) The petitioner shall report before the

¶27

investigating officer for necessary interrogation if felt necessary between 10 am. and 11 am on all Fridays for a period of two months.

¶28

b) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he

¶29

shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶30

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

¶31

P.J.Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Sebastian 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

Anson O.J. Vs State of Kerala

Prajith Rich Vs State of Kerala

Gopi Vs State of Kerala

Deepu Vs State of Kerala

Shalu T. Vs State of Kerala

Ameen V.Y. Vs State of Kerala