This judgment dismissed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by the 5th accused in a case involving cheating and forgery. The court held that prima facie evidence of forgery existed, rendering the petitioner an unfit case for anticipatory bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/20TH CHAITHRA, 1939 Bail Appl..No. 1463 of 2017 () -------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 155/2017 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED 03-02-2017 CRIME NO. 1149/2016 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, TRISSUR
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
MAHESH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. CHANTHAKUTTY, VELUPPAL HOUSE, KARALUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.PREMCHAND
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
IAP
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A.No. 1463 of 2017
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2017
ORDER
Petitioner is the 5th accused in crime no.1149/2016 of Kodungallur Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 420,461,464 and 471 IPC. The petitioner was one of the sureties of a subscriber to a chitty to whom the prize amount was paid by the former. It was found that the salary certificate produced by the petitioner was false.
forgery. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
In the result this bail application is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE
//True Copy\
P.A to Judge
IAP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for anticipatory bail given the prima facie evidence of forgery.
Whether the case for forgery warrants the discharge or rejection of bail application.
Whether the applicant qualifies for bail under the relevant bail provisions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MAHESH
STATE OF KERALA
K.ABRAHAM MATHEW
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
