Allowed

K.K Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2017Bail Appl./809/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Bail Application No. 809 of 2017, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. He is accused of cheating under Section 420 IPC for misrepresentation. The court found detention unnecessary as evidence was not reliable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail after interrogation upon executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, subject to conditions regarding appearance, passport surrender, and

K.K Babu 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 K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/15TH CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 809 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 92/2017 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.K. BABU,

¶9

AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN, KAVALAPILLY PADAM, KANDOTH P.O, PAYYANNUR.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.D.FEROZE.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. (CRIME NO. 92/2017 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT).

¶13

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT- 671 121, (CRIME NO. 92/2017 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT).

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI.

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶18

B.A.No.809 of 2017

¶19

Dated this the 5^th day of April, 2017

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.92 of 2017 of Hosdurg Police Station registered for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution case is that the petitioner misrepresented to the first informant that he was an advocate, which caused the petitioner to entrust him to conduct a litigation for which he paid Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner.

¶24

The learned counsel submits that the allegation is false.

¶25

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

¶26

The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is attached to the office of Advocate Satheesh Kumar of Kasaragod Bar and the first informant entrusted his case to the Advocate and the allegation against the petitioner is false. It appears that the Investigating Officer is yet to collect reliable evidence to prove the allegation against the petitioner. His detention is not necessary for effective investigation.

¶27

B.A.No.809 of 2017

¶28

¶29

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶30

i. The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the investigating officer in connection with this case.

¶31

ii. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 7^th and 14^th days of his release.

¶32

iii. He shall surrender his passport before the lower court concerned or if he does not have one he shall file an affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

¶33

iv. He shall not get himself involved in any other criminal case while he is on bail.

¶34

v. He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.

¶35

vi. He shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned

¶37

Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶40

¶41

/True copy/

¶42

P.A. to Judge

K.K Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K Babu 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

Geevarghese.M.D Vs State of Kerala

Febin Lal R.K Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Dennis Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chenattil Sudheerkumar Vs State of Kerala

Anish C.A. Vs the State of Kerala

Anu Vs State of Kerala