Allowed

Arun Raj Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Nov 2018Bail Appl./1711/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the accused in Crime No. 359/Cr/Stats/Tvm/17 pending investigation for alleged tax evasion and forgery offences under various sections of the IPC, allowing interrogation before ultimate bail application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed pending investigation subject to appearing before IO within ten days for interrogation and executing bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties if arrest is proposed.

Arun Raj Pillai 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1711 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 359/Cr/Stats/Tvm/17 OF CBCID,(STATS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ARUN RAJ PILLAI,

¶9

AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.M.K.RAJENDRAN PILLAI,RAGAVALSAM, PANANGADU, KULANADA,PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

PP SRI.S SAJJU

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No.1711/2018

O R D E R

Petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.

¶20

359/Cr/Stats/Tvm/17 of CBCID(STATS),Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under sections 454,465,468,471 and 420 IPC.

¶21

The allegation of the prosecution is that, the petitioner herein took a temporary registration for his Jaguar car from Kerala and thereafter took permanent registration from Puducherry. The vehicle was used for plying in Kerala. Alleging that this was meant for tax evasion availing the benefit in Puducherry, crime was registered. Petitioner herein takes up the stand that he had intention to start business in Puducherry and he is plying the vehicle only in Karnataka. This is a matter of evidence. However, in the nature of the allegation, I do not feel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely essential. Hence, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre arrest bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶22

(i). Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶23

(Ii). He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when

¶24

BA No.1711/2018

¶25

¶26

called for and co-operate with the investigation, which includes production of all records relating to the vehicle, the details regarding his residence and also furnishing of such details which are available with the petitioner and which are essential for the purpose of interrogation as sought by the investigating officer.

¶27

iii). He shall not get involved in any other offence. Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

dpk

Arun Raj Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Raj Pillai 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

Balu Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Ciril C Binu Vs State of Kerala

Figin Francis, Vs the State of Kerala

Saleem P. Vs State of Kerala

Sree Lal @ Sreekuttan Vs State of Kerala

Alakandy Rasheed Vs State of Kerala