Dismissed

Visalakshy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2017Bail Appl./1697/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC alleging forgery and misappropriation in a chitty fraud, the Kerala High Court denied pre-arrest bail citing early stage investigation and prima facie evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime, while allowing surrender for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner permitted to surrender to investigating officer for interrogation.

Visalakshy Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2017/11TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1697 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 250/2015 OF SOORANAD POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

VISALAKSHY,

¶9

AGED 48 YEARS, PRESIDENT KUNNATHOOR TALUK WELFARE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Q 1513, SOORANAD, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT GREEN VILLA, PORUVAZHY VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

¶13

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANAD POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT 695 002.

¶14

3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), KOLLAM DISTRICT- 691 001.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C.NAIR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶19

B.A. No.1697 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2017

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This application is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶23

The petitioner is arrayed as the 1^st accused in Crime No.250 of 2015 of Sooranad Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and468 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶24

The petitioner was the president of Kunnathoor Taluk Residents Welfare Co-operative Society. Her husband, who is arrayed as the 2^nd accused, was a member of the Director Board. According to the prosecution, the petitioner along with the other accused withdrew huge sums of money deposited by various subscribers of chitty conducted by the society by forging documents. It is specifically alleged that a sum of Rs.3.86 crores was misappropriated by the petitioner and the other accused.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner herein is absolutely innocent and she had nothing to do with the pilfering of large amount of cash.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the said

¶27

BA 1697/2017

¶28

¶29

submission. Referring to the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch Economic Offences, Kollam who is presently investigating the crime, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are specific materials to conclude that the petitioner herein and the other accused had looted the society. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, most of the accused have not been arrested till date and the investigation is in the early stages.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.

¶31

It appears that the contention advanced by the learned counsel that the petitioner has nothing to do with the commission of the offence, cannot be countenanced. Prima facie, it appears that there are materials connecting the petitioner with the crime. As rightly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, as the investigation is in the early stages, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the investigation at this stage. I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶32

However, at this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prays that she be permitted to surrender before the investigating officer and to co-operate with the investigation. If the

¶33

BA 1697/2017

¶34

¶35

petitioner is so advised, she may surrender before the investigating officer, who shall interrogate her. If arrest of the petitioner is found necessary, the investigating officer shall thereafter produce her before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the statutory period. On such production, if an application for bail is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously.

¶36

This application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

¶37

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶38

vps

Visalakshy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visalakshy 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

Ajeeb M. Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Abdu Raheem Vs State of Kerala

Iqbal Vs State of Kerala

Pushpakumari Vs State of Kerala

Susheela Vs State of Kerala

Akhil R Vs State of Kerala