Allowed

V.I.Yamuna v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2017Bail Appl./1388/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused persons charged with theft and forgery. The court noted suspicious circumstances and a history of disputes between the petitioner and the complainant, granting bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties. Conditions include surrendering passports and not tampering with evidence.

V.I.Yamuna 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/17TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1388 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 153/2017 OF BALIAPPATTAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1. V.I.YAMUNA, W/O. T.P.NARAYANAN, AGED 40 YEARS, 'SREEDANI', THAZHEPADIKKAL ILLOM, KALARIVATHUKKAL, VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. RAHINLAL K., S/O. NARAYANAN K., ARAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH SRI.M.SUKUMARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I OF POLICE, BALIAPATTAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

SKG

¶16

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

--------------------------------------B.A.No.1388 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2017

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in

¶21

Crime No.153/2017 of Baliapattam Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 380, 454 and 461 IPC. The 1^st petitioner is the wife of the first informant. It is alleged that she along with the co-accused trespassed into the first informant's house and committed theft of gold ornaments worth 40 sovereigns and Rs.10 Lakh in cash.

¶22

The learned counsel submits that this false

¶23

case was got registered because of some matrimonial disputes.

¶24

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

¶25

There are six other cases between the 1^st petitioner and the first informant, who are husband and wife. A perusal of the case diary shows that there are some suspicious circumstances in the case. For these reasons I am inclined to

¶26

¶27

B.A.No.1388 of 2017

¶28

grant prayer of the petitioners.

¶29

In the result, the application is allowed.

¶30

The petitioners shall be released on bail after

¶31

interrogation on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the investigating officer in connection with this case.

¶32

They shall not destroy or tamper with evidence. 3) They shall appear before the investigating

¶33

officer for interrogation if they are so required by him in writing.

¶34

They shall surrender their passport before the

¶35

lower court concerned or if they do not have one they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release.

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE sd // True Copy // P.A. to Judge

V.I.Yamuna v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.I.Yamuna 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasannakumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinodkumar K E Vs State of Kerala

Bijo Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Yogidas Vs State of Kerala

Vinu Vs the State of Kerala

Sathyadas Vs State of Kerala