Allowed

Shibu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2017Bail Appl./7420/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered an application for anticipatory bail filed by two accused persons in a cheque dishonour case. Holding their role minimal, the court allowed the application subject to specific investigation and cooperation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to appearance for interrogation within ten days, cooperation with investigation on Saturdays, and observance of other standard bail conditions.

Shibu Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/18TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 7420 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 797/2017 OF NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION , IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SHIBU, AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.KARUNAKARAN,KONNACKKAL HOUSE, THOOKUPALAM,NEDUMKANDAM,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685553.

¶9

2. GOPIKA SHIBU, AGED 35 YEARS, SHIBU, KONNACKKAL HOUSE, THOOKUPALAM,NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685553.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN

¶11

SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.SETHURAM DHARMAPALAN SRI.P.J.SHIJO

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,NEDUMKANDAM POLICE STATION,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685553,THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERANAKULAM.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. M. KAMMAPPU

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sdr/-

¶17

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶18

B.A.No.7420 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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

¶22

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No. 797 of 2017 of Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki. They are husband and wife and are respectively the Branch Manager and Collection agent of the chit company by name Thathwamasi Chits and Investments Private Ltd. The 3^rd accused in the aforesaid Crime is the Managing Director of the Chit Company.

¶23

3.The prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant was a subscriber of the chit for a sum of Rs.3 lakhs conducted by the company. Several instalments were remitted and finally, the chit was prized in her favour. Towards the prize amount, cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,82,000/- was issued. However, the cheque was dishonored for want of funds. This led to

¶24

B.A.No. 7420 of 2017 2

¶25

launching of the complaint.

¶26

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that even if the prosecution allegations are admitted as such, the petitioners are merely employees. It was the 3^rd accused, who had closed the chit business and had fled from the scene after issuing several cheques to the customers.

¶27

5.Heard the Public Prosecutor as well.

¶28

6.I have gone through the case diary. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel the role of the petitioners are minimal. It does not appear to me that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in the facts and circumstances.

¶29

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject

¶30

to the following conditions:

¶31

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

¶32

B.A.No. 7420 of 2017 3

¶33

ii)The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

v) If they surrender before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶38

the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider

¶39

the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

//True Copy\

¶43

IAP P.A to Judge

Shibu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu 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

Mohammed Thanzeel T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Hashim Thangal @ Saidu Muhammed Hashim Thangal Vs State of Kerala

Sreelesh Vs State of Kerala

Shinoj Kumar K.K Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Reyas Vs State of Kerala