Allowed

Shajina C.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Mar 2017Bail Appl./358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a second accused for offences of cheating under the IPC. The court granted relief on the ground that the commercial transaction dispute underlying the charges had been settled by the parties.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.25,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

Shajina C.P. 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

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/19TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 358 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.1543/2016 OF KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAJINA C.P., AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.NAJEEB A.C., KURUPPUMKUNNEL HOUSE, CHOORAKULANGARA, ETTUMANOOR P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR

¶10

SMT.T.N.BINDU

¶11

SRI.P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR (KOLLAMALA)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. ANTONY MATHEW, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.LATE V.C.MATHEW, VADAKKEKOLLAMPARAMBIL, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, KOTTAYAM - 686605.

¶16

R1& R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶20

B.A.No.358 of 2017

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of March, 2017

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.1543 of 2016

¶25

of Kalamassery Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 465, 420 and 134 of IPC.

¶26

The allegation is that he and the co-accused cheated the first informant in connection with a commercial transaction.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned counsel submitted that the dispute has been settled between the parties. The first informant to whom a notice was issued has entered appearance through a counsel. He also submits that matter has been settled. The dispute is with regard to a commercial transaction. Having regard to these facts I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner.

¶29

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶30

B.A.No.358 of 2017 2

¶31

i) The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the investigating officer in connection with this case.

¶32

If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order is not applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶33

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶34

Shajina C.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajina C.P. 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

Thaha K Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Abid T.A Vs State of Kerala

Remesan Vs State of Kerala

Remesan Vs State of Kerala

Gladwin Alexander T.A Vs State of Kerala