Dismissed

K.Madhusoodanan Master v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2018Bail Appl./1449/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The court recorded reasons for the arrest based on a serious cheating case and found insufficient grounds for bail. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed. Suggestion given to surrender and file a regular bail application if required.

K.Madhusoodanan Master Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2018 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1449 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.768/2017 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

K.MADHUSOODANAN MASTER AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KUTTYKRISHNAN GUPTHAN, CHAITHRAM, ALIPARAMBU P.O., KAMPURAM ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 357.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 31.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶15

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶16

B.A. No. 1449 of 2018

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1.This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, being Crime No.768 of 2017, registered with Perinthalmanna Police Station. He has been arrayed as the 8^th accused in the said crime.

¶20

2.According to the prosecution, the applicant is a collection agent of a company by name “Phenomenal health Care Malayali Limited” and he had collected a total sum of Rs.25 lakhs from various customers and thus cheated them.

¶21

3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that the allegations levelled against him are false and frivolous. According to the learned counsel, the applicant was also a subscriber of the company and he has also been defrauded. Reference is made to Annexure-A2 certificate of membership to substantiate his point.

¶22

4.The learned Public Prosecutor has very emphatically opposed the submissions. It is submitted that the investigation

¶23

-:2:-

¶24

BA.1449/18

¶25

conducted till date shows that the applicant herein had a major role to play in defrauding several persons.

¶26

5.I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced. After going through the materials on record, I am not persuaded to grant an order of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

¶27

6.The learned counsel prays that necessary directions be issued to enable the applicant to surrender. If the applicant is so advised, he may surrender before the Investigating officer or the court having jurisdiction. If an application for bail is preferred before the Court, the same shall be considered and order shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits

¶28

This application will stand dismissed.

¶29

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶30

krj.24/5

¶31

//true copy//

¶32

P.A to Judge

K.Madhusoodanan Master v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Madhusoodanan Master 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

Jayaprasad Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala

Shafir Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Mathi Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Mathai Vs the State of Kerala

Jacob Mathai Vs State of Kerala