Allowed

Balagopal v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Nov 2017Bail Appl./6301/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to a Health Inspector accused of offences under IPC Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420. The court held custodial interrogation was not warranted as the facts concerned matters of record and decision-making by the Panchayath.

What did the court decide?

The application for pre-arrest bail stands allowed subject to conditions including appearing for interrogation within ten days, cooperating with the investigation, and refraining from threatening witn

Balagopal Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/16TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6301 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 753/2017 OF ANCHALUMMOOD POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

BALAGOPAL, HEALTH INSPECTOR, THRIKKADAVOOR COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, ANCHALUMMOOD, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP SMT.O.A.NURIYA

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANCHALUMOOD, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 682 031

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sdr/-

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶16

B.A.No.6301 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application for pre-arrest bail.

¶20

The petitioner herein is the 1^st accused in Crime No.

¶21

753 of 2017 of Anchalummood Police Station, registered

¶22

alleging offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 471 and 420 r/w 34 IPC.

¶23

The petitioner is the Health Inspector of the Thrikkadavur Community Health Center. According to the prosecution, the 2^nd accused, who is the panchayth Secretary, without legal sanction issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,35,825/- to the petitioner towards Pre-monsoon sanitation programme. The same was received by the petitioner without the consent and sanction of the Medical Officer. Later the petitioner is alleged to have produced forged receipts for a sum of Rs 55,825 before the Audit team against the provisions of the Kerala Financial Code.

¶24

According to the learned counsel, he has been falsely implicated. Referring to Annexure-B order of this Court, it is

¶25

B.A.No. 6301 of 2017 2

¶26

submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have been granted prearrest bail. It is further submitted that the money was handed over by the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in terms of the decision taken by the Panchayath and a perusal of the official documents would reveal the falsity of the allegations .

¶27

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

¶28

As has been observed in Annexure-B order of this

¶29

Court, the sanctioning of various payments, issuance of receipts and the question whether they were done in accordance with the provisions are all matters of record and in that view of the matter it does not appear that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted.

¶30

In the result, the application stands allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶31

i). Petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/(Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶32

B.A.No. 6301 of 2017 3

¶33

ii). He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶34

iii) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or his witnesses.

¶35

iv) He shall not get involved in any other identical offence and the involvement if any, will be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶36

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.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶39

//True Copy\

¶40

P.A to Judge

¶41

IAP

Balagopal v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balagopal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Peter Rosalain Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala

P.a.Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Grithul Roshan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Balussery Police Station,Kozhikode