Allowed

Geetha Devi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2018Bail Appl./3443/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by the 2nd accused in a cheating case under IPC sections 420, 406, 465, 417, 471, 120(B) and 34. Court allowed pre-arrest bail on conditions including appearing for interrogation and surrendering a bond.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant to undergo interrogation within ten days; subsequently released on bail of Rs.40,000 with two sureties if arrested, subject to conditions regarding cooperation and condu

Geetha Devi 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

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 3443 of 2018 --------------CRIME NO.230/2018 OF PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, TRISSUR

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

¶6

GEETHA DEVI D/O.NARAYANAN KUTTY, AGED 57 YEARS, TEACHER, CENTRAL SCHOOL, RAILWAY COLONY, KALLEKULANGARA, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT VISHANAVI, GIRI NAGAR, NSS ENGINEERING COLLEGE PO, AKETHETHARA, PALAKKAD 678 006.

¶7

BY ADV.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶8

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶10

2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PAZHAYANNUR POLICE STATION, PAZHAYANNUR PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶14

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = B.A. No. 3443 of 2018

¶15

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

¶16

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This application seeking pre-arrest bail is preferred by the 2^nd accused in Crime No.230 of 2018 of Pazhayannur Police Station, registered under Sections 420, 406, 465, 417, 471 and 120(B) r/w. Sec. 34 of the IPC.

¶19

The aforesaid Crime was registered based on a complaint preferred by one Vijayakumar. According to the de facto complainant, the 1^st accused one Suryanarayanan was his employee. On 13.5.2011, the aforesaid Suryanarayanan along with accused Nos.2 and 3 approached him and impressed upon him that 85 cents of property was up for

¶20

sale. As suggested by accused Nos. 2 and 3, an agreement for sale was entered into with one Parameswaran, the 4^th accused, and a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- was handed over by way of cash towards advance. The de facto complainant was assured that the sale deed can be registered within a period of 11 months. The 4^th accused reneged from the agreement. This led to the institution of O.S No.825 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. In the course of proceedings before the Civil

¶21

BA.3443/18

¶22

-:2:-

¶23

Court, it was realised that the 4^th accused was not the original owner of the property. According to the de facto complainant, he was made to part with the money with intention to deceive him.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the allegations are without basis. The applicant had nothing to do with the 1^st accused. It is further submitted that in respect of a transaction which took place in the year 2011, the instant Crime has been registered only on 8.4.2018. The long delay in setting the law in motion would affect the credibility of the version of the de facto complainant is the submission.

¶25

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the materials on record. It appears that the applicant herein is a teacher in the Central School at Palakkad. It is not reported that the applicant is a person with criminal antecedents. Even otherwise, the role attributed to the applicant is quite minor.

¶26

Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the applicants, the role attributed and attendant facts, I am of the view that the custodial

¶27

BA.3443/18

¶28

-:3:-

¶29

interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for an effective investigation.

¶30

In the result, this application is allowed. The applicant shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty

¶31

thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum on condition that:

¶32

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶33

ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶34

iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶35

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

Sd/Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge

¶37

krj.19/6 //true copy// P.A to Judge

Geetha Devi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Joshi Vs State of Kerala

Purushan Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Varapuzha Police Station

Shahul Hameed Vs the State of Kerala