Allowed

Soji George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1230/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted conditional anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and released them on a bond with conditions to appear before the investigating officer and not influence witnesses. The judgment referenced ten similar prior cases where bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail by executing a bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties each for the same amount.

Soji George Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1230 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.97/2018 OF ALAKODE POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SOJI GEORGE, W/O. TOMY ABRAHAM, AGED 40, EDAPPARAKKAL HOUSE, VAYATTUPARAMBA P.O., KARUVANCHAL, VELLAD VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 TOMY ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, AGED 45, EDAPPARAKKAL HOUSE, VAYATTUPARAMBA P.O., KARUVANCHAL, VELLAD VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SMT.P.SHEEBA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH HOUSE OFFICER, ALAKODE POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. BABU P. G., S/O. GOPALAN, AGED 54, PURACKATTU HOUSE, KARUVANCHAL P.O., VELLAD VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND R2 BY ADV. SRI.VISHAK.K.JOHNSON

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

16.3.2018

¶18

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶19

Bail Application No.1230 of 2018

¶20

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2018

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

The petitioners are the first and the second accused in the case registered as Crime No.97/2018 of the Alakode police station under Section 3 read with Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958.

¶24

The prosecution case is as follows. The first petitioner is employed in the Alakode Rubber and Agricultural Marketing Cooperative Society Ltd. The second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner. The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau conducted a search in the Co-operative Society during the investigation of the case registered as VC/05/17/SCK under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During the course of that search a cheque leaf issued in the name of one Babu was seized from the drawer of the table of the first petitioner. It is alleged that the aforesaid cheque had been given by Babu to the petitioners when he borrowed Rs.25,000/- from them. It is alleged that the petitioners have got no licence under the Kerala Money Lenders Act and that they were conducting money lending business without any licence.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶26

¶27

Bail Application No.1230 of 2018

¶28

learned Public Prosecutor. Heard also the learned counsel for the second respondent who has allegedly given the cheque to the petitioners. Perused the case diary.

¶29

Learned counsel for the victim Babu would submit that

¶30

the victim had given a signed blank cheque to the petitioners when he borrowed amount from them but the petitioners had never compelled him to give such a cheque and that he had given the cheque voluntarily. This does not mean that the petitioners had licence to conduct money lending business. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioners appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. The prosecution has also no apprehension that on getting bail, the petitioners would abscond and flee from justice. It is also relevant to note that in ten other cases registered against the petitioners on similar allegations, this court has granted anticipatory bail to them. Considering these aspects, I find that the discretion of the court can be exercised in this case also to grant them pre-arrest bail.

¶31

In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

¶32

The petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand

¶33

Bail Application No.1230 of 2018

¶34

¶35

only) each with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of their arrest by the police in Crime No. 97 of 2018 of Alakode Police Station.

¶36

The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer between 9 a.m and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of three months from the date of their release on bail.

¶37

The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶38

The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed in writing to do so.

¶39

Sd/- (R. Narayana Pisharadi, Judge)

¶40

//True Copy//

¶41

P.A. To Judge

¶42

Soji George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soji George 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

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Sujin Vs State of Kerala

Aseer A.P Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu K Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Ajin P. Shaji Vs the Station House Officer