Dismissed

Sri. Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jan 2017Bail Appl./9/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by a second accused charged with cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court rejected the plea that the petitioner was not involved, citing clear evidence in the First Information Statement, and held that anticipatory bail was not appropriate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed

Sri. Suresh Kumar 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

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2017/3RD MAGHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 9 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1356/2016 OF POOVAR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

SRI. SURESH KUMAR,

¶9

AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, NILACKAL HARIGEETHAM, PUTHUKANDAM, KARTHIKAPPALLI - 690 516.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE, SRI.M.A.PRABHU.

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶17

B.A.No. 9 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2017

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

Petitioner is second accused in Crime No.1356 of 2016 of

¶22

Poovar Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

¶23

The first accused is his brother in-law, who is employed abroad. The prosecution case is that they together promised the first informant a job visa for which they received Rs.2 lakh. They sent the first informant to Qatar. But his visa did not enable him to join the duty. The first accused wanted him to pay Rs.1 lakh more. He could not pay it. So he came back to India. After five months, he lodged a complaint.

¶24

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

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts do not disclose commission of any offence by the petitioner. The FI Statement clearly discloses his involvement in the transaction. Another submission of the learned counsel is that the complaint was lodged only five months after the first informant came back to India from Qatar. The delay can be easily explained. The first accused was abroad. Normally the efforts will be to

¶26

B.A.No. 9 of 2017 2

¶27

get back the amount paid. Only when it became impossible the first informant lodged the complaint. Since the petitioner's involvement is

¶28

clear, I do not think that it is proper to grant him anticipatory bail.

¶29

In the result, this Bail Application is dismissed.

¶30

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶31

Sri. Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Suresh Kumar 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

Mathew Varghese @ Sharon Vs the State of Kerala

Aniyan.D Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil @ Ganapathy Vs State of Kerala

Savad K.M Vs State of Kerala

Janaki P Vs State of Kerala