Allowed

S.Panicker v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2017Bail Appl./5395/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed under Section 438 CrPC by the 2nd accused in a cheating case. The court observed that custodial interrogation was not required and granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions including a bond and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions including execution of bond for Rs. 30,000 with two sureties and cooperation with investigation.

S.Panicker Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/22ND KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5395 of 2017 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 445/2017 OF VALAYAR POLICE STATION,PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 2:

¶8

S.PANICKER, "USHUS", AGED 46 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, PERFECT GRAPHICS, 411/VII, KAIPUZHA KAVALA, POOVANTHURUTHU P.O., KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANILAL

¶10

SRI.M.K.SUBHAKARAN SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

*ADDL.R2 & R3 IMPLEADED

¶14

*ADDL.R2: THE BRANCH MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, KANJIKODE BRANCH, PALAKKAD-678 009.

¶15

*ADDL.R3: A.ARIFA, W/O.RAHUMATHULLA, HIGHTOP BAGS,KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 009

¶16

*ADDL.R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/8/2017 IN CRL.MA.NO.9231/2017.

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SMT.KEERTHI K.NARAYANAN

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶21

B.A. No.5395 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2017

¶23

ORDER

¶24

1.This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

2.The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.445 of 2017 of Valayar Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 403 and 420 of the IPC.

¶26

3.According to the prosecution, the 1^st accused in the aforesaid crime availed a term loan from the 2^nd respondent Bank for purchasing sewing machines, machinery etc. A sum of Rs.8,38,250/- was credited to the account of the petitioner by the 2^nd respondent. The loan was defaulted by the 1^st accused. On enquiry by the Bank it was revealed that the petitioner had not supplied the machine to the 1^st accused and instead released the money to the the 1^st accused and her husband. This is against the terms of the agreement .

¶27

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶28

BA 5395/2017

¶29

¶30

petitioner is a supplier of printers and there is no privity between the de facto complainant and the petitioner herein. When the purchaser opted for a better machine, in terms of Annexure-1 agreement, the amount was returned back. The petitioner has not derived any undue benefit and the transaction is purely commercial is the submission advanced.

¶31

5.Heard the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶32

6.It does not appear to me that this is a case in which custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to unearth the evidence , if any. I am of the view that pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to conditions.

¶33

7.In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶34

i) It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner/the 2^nd accused in connection with the Crime No.445 of 2017 of Valayar Police station, he shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest.

¶35

ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the

¶36

BA 5395/2017

¶37

¶38

investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶39

iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶40

iv) If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶41

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶42

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶43

vps 16/11

¶44

/True Copy/

¶45

PS to Judge

S.Panicker v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Panicker 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

Ajesh v.Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

Shaludeen Vs the State of Kerala

Abubacker Aka Kunjumon Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ashraf K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sijumon Vs State of Kerala