Allowed

Vinodkumar K E v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2017Bail Appl./792/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were accused of cheating and forgery related to shipping documents. The court held that mere loss caused does not prove dishonest intention and detention was not necessary for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail by executing a bond with sureties and complying with specified conditions including interrogation and passport surrender.

Vinodkumar K E 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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/16TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 792 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 79/2017 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

VINODKUMAR K.E., AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.EASWARANKUTTY, VELLAPARA P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOSE ANTONY SRI.R.SAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, (THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.79/2017), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU S.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2017, ALONG WITH BA. 856/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶16

B.A.Nos. 792 & 856 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Petitioner in B.A.No.792 of 2017 and B.A.No.856 of 2017 are the first and second accused respectively in Crime No.79 of 2017 of Karunagappally Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶21

The first accused was the manager and the second accused another executive in an exporting company which is the first informant in this case. One foreign company placed an order with the complainant company for export of some goods. The agreement between the parties entitled the foreign company to get the bill of lading only after the full amount of the goods was paid. But it is alleged that the petitioners and the third accused in furtherance of their common intention prepared and sent the bill of lading before the full amount was paid. The first accused allegedly suppressed the fact that the foreign company was a black listed one. The loss sustained by the complainant company is Rs.26,80,000/Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation is false and the petitioners were not involved in the transaction and it was the third

¶22

B.A.Nos. 792 & 856 of 2017 2

¶23

accused who prepared and sent the bill of lading.

¶24

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

¶25

As of now it cannot be said that there is evidence to prove there was dishonest intention of the petitioners even if it is assumed that it was they who prepared and sent the bill of lading. Merely because their action has caused loss to the complainant company it cannot be said that they have committed the offences. From the facts of the case, I am inclined to take the view that their detention is not necessary for effective investigation. So I am inclined to grant their prayer.

¶26

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed.

¶27

i. The petitioners shall be released on bail after interrogation on their executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two

¶28

solvent sureties each for the like sum if they are arrested by the investigating officer in connection with this case.

¶29

ii. They shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation on 7^th and 14^th days after their release.

¶30

B.A.Nos. 792 & 856 of 2017 3

¶31

iii. They shall not intimidate or attempt to

¶32

influence the witnesses, nor shall they get themselves involved in any other criminal case.

¶33

iv. They shall surrender their passports before the lower court concerned or if they do not have one they shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of their release.

¶34

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

¶35

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the lower court concerned is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶36

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶37

Vinodkumar K E v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinodkumar K E 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

Rasheed Poolakkal Vs State of Kerala

Fousiya Kunnan Vs State of Kerala

Haroof Vs State of Kerala

Prasannakumar Vs State of Kerala

Bijo Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

M.Ajith Kumar Vs State of Kerala