Allowed

M.K.Radhakrishnan Nair v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1414/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the third accused in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC, finding that custodial interrogation was not necessary for the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting to IO, cooperating with investigation, and not tampering with witnesses.

M.K.Radhakrishnan Nair Vs the State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1414 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 2/2017 OF VACB, KANNUR , KANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED

¶8

M.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR DEPUT Y GENERAL MANAGER, FRBL, FACT-RCF BUILDING PRODUCTS LTD., AMBALAMEDU, KOCHI.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.K.RAKESH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶12

ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶13

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR UNIT, PIN - 670 001.

¶14

BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI A RAJESH

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶17

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Bail Application No.1414 of 2018

¶18

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8^th day of March 2018

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the third accused in Crime No.2 of 2017 of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kannur registered for the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B I.P.C.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that there were irregularities and corruption in implementation of Palakkayamthattu Tourist Project at Palakkayam Thattu, which includes construction of Kiosk, Retaining wall, Steps, Handrails etc.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this application praying for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

¶24

BA.1414/18

¶25

Heard.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor has no serious

¶27

objection in allowing the application.

¶28

Having gone through the relevant inputs, I am of the view that this is not a case where the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

¶29

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondents are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 2 of 2017 of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Kannur on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.40,000/(Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties,

¶30

BA.1414/18 3

¶31

each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 2^nd

¶32

respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶35

(iii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶36

(iv) The petitioner shall not get involved in any

¶37

offence during the pendency of this case.

¶38

Sd/

¶39

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

JUDGE

dl/8.3.18

// True copy //

PA to Judge

M.K.Radhakrishnan Nair v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Radhakrishnan Nair v. the 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

K.J.Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

Nandhini Vijayaraghavan Vs Manimenon

Unnikrishnan Ullisseri Vs Chandran

Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Thajudheen Vs P. Abdulkadar

Bindu, W/O.Babu Vs Sree Gokulam Chit & Finance Co. Pvt.Ltd.