Allowed

Athira T.A v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2017Bail Appl./7131/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons alleged to be defrauding under a chitty scheme involving cheating offences. The Court rejected the necessity of custodial interrogation and imposed strict bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted to petitioners conditioned on weekly appearances before the Investigating Officer and compliance with twelve specific conditions.

Athira T.A 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/12TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7131 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 2512/2017 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1. ATHIRA T.A AGED 27 YEARS, D/O. T.K AJAYAKUMAR, THEKKEVATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY P.O, COCHIN - 682 024.

¶9

2. T.K AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. K.K.KESAVAN, THEKKEVATTAPPILLIL HOUSE, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY P.O, COCHIN - 682 024

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SRI.ARUN SAMUEL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶13

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RANJITH

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

VPS

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶18

B.A. No. 7131 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

1.This is application for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.2512 of 2017 of Central Police station, Ernakualm. The aforesaid crime has been registered alleging offences punishable under section 420 read with 34 of the IPC.

¶22

2.The prosecution allegation is that the 1^st petitioner is the daughter of the 2^nd petitioner and they joined a chitty conducted by the KSFE, Ernakulam. The chitty was prized in favour of the 1^st petitioner and to avail the prize amount, they secured the service of the de facto complainant, who stood as a guarantor. According to the prosecution, the petitioners defaulted in paying the instalments and hence recovery proceedings were initiated against the de facto complainant. This led to the lodging of the complaint based on which the aforesaid Crime was registered.

¶23

BA 7131/2017

¶24

¶25

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the default was not wilful and that they had no intention to defraud the de facto complainant. The offence will not be attracted as against them is in short the submission.

¶26

4.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

¶27

5.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the relationship between the parties and the overall facts and circumstances, it does not appear to me that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are required for an effective investigation. Appropriate conditions can be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

¶28

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

¶29

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶30

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m once in a week for one month or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶31

BA 7131/2017

¶32

¶33

(iii) The petitioners 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.

¶34

(iv) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the Investigating officer and for all investigative purposes whenever required.

¶35

(v) The petitioners shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶36

(vi) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶37

(vii) If they surrender before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶38

(viii) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶41

vps 3/11

Athira T.A v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Athira T.A 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

Kurinjery Sajitha Vs State of Kerala

Latheesh Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar.M.N Vs State of Kerala

Salman V.A. Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Harikrishnan A.N Vs State of Kerala