Allowed

Fousiya Kunnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Mar 2017Bail Appl./1022/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for a petitioner accused of cheating, finding her involvement doubtful and the case fit for anticipatory bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner to execute a bond for Rs.25,000 with sureties and comply with conditions against influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Fousiya Kunnan Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1022 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.665/2014 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

FOUSIYA KUNNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.ALI KUNNAN, KOLAKKUNNU HOUSE, AREACODE P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT-STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (INSTRUCTIONS THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AREACODE POLICE STATION, AREACODE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶16

B.A.No.1022 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.665 of 2014 of

¶21

Areacode Police Station registered for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC.

¶22

The petitioner is said to be an agent of a finance company. The first informant borrowed certain amount from the company pledging certain ornaments. She wanted to get back some of the items on paying the proportionate amount. It is alleged that when she tendered the amount she was asked to pay a higher amount by the manager of the company.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The involvement of the petitioner in the incident alleged in the complaint itself is doubtful. This is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

¶25

¶26

B.A.No.1022 of 2017

¶27

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶28

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if

¶29

she is arrested by the Investigating Officer in connection with this case.

¶30

ii. She shall not get herself involved in any other criminal case while she is on bail.

¶31

iii. She shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶32

iv. She shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶33

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶34

learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶37

¶38

/True copy/

¶39

P.A. to Judge

Fousiya Kunnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fousiya Kunnan 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

Justine Jose Vs State of Kerala

Jijo Samuel Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Vs State of Kerala

Rasheed Poolakkal Vs State of Kerala

Haroof Vs State of Kerala

Adv.Dr.P Krishnadas Vs State of Kerala