Allowed

Alwin T.Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Apr 2017Bail Appl./196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the fourth accused in an agency fraud case. The charge sheet alleged cheating and document tampering, but the court found no documentary evidence of the petitioner's detention of documents. Bail was granted subject to conditions regarding document usage and witness interference.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions not using victim documents or influencing witnesses.

Alwin T.Abraham 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 6TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/16TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 196 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 40/2017 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

APPLICANT/4TH ACCUSED: ----------------------

¶8

ALWIN T.ABRAHAM, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.T.M.ABRAHAM, CHANDANAVELIL HOUSE, VAZHARMANGALAM P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA, KERALA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

*** ADDL R2 IMPLEADED**

¶13

2. LIJU JACOB, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O JACOB, THOONATTU HOUSE, NEAR SNDP TEMPLE, AMBALLOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

*** ADDL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6/4/2017 IN CRL.MA NO 538/2017**

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI SUMAN CHKRAVARTHEY R2 BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.V.

¶18

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶19

B.A.No. 196 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of April, 2017

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.40 of 2017 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered for the offences under Sections 370(1)(3), 384, 406, 417 and 506(1) IPC and Section 25 of the Emigration Rules r/w Section 24 of the Emigration Act. He along with the co-accused conducts an agency by name HIBA Exports India Ltd., for recruitment of candidates for foreign employment. It is alleged that through the agency the victim obtained employment in Kuwait as a nurse, for which the agency received from her Rs.15 lakh and her qualification certificates and some other documents. Though she joined the job, the petitioner did not return the original certificates and other documents and demanded Rs.8 lakh more. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are false and the petitioner has returned all the documents and he did not demand more money.

¶24

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

¶25

B.A.No. 196 of 2017 2

¶26

There is no documentary evidence to prove that the petitioner

¶27

is in custody of any document of the victim at present. I think in this circumstance it is sufficient that a direction is issued that he shall not use for any purpose any certificate or other document obtained from the victim

¶28

or her relatives either in India or abroad. He has made this undertaking in this court through their counsel.

¶29

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed.

¶30

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail

¶31

on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the lower court concerned.

¶32

ii. He shall appear before the investigating

¶33

officer for interrogation if he is so required by him in writing.

¶34

iii. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he get himself involved in any other criminal case.

¶35

B.A.No. 196 of 2017 3

¶36

iv. He shall not use for any purpose any

¶37

certificate or document obtained from the victim

¶38

either in India or abroad.

¶39

If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order is not applicable

¶40

and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶41

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

¶42

concerned is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶43

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶44

Alwin T.Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alwin T.Abraham 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

K.K Babu Vs State of Kerala

Chenattil Sudheerkumar Vs State of Kerala

Anish C.A. Vs the State of Kerala

Chinju Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Jagadeesh Rai Vs State of Kerala

Alwin T.Abraham Vs State of Kerala