Allowed

Vimala Franklin v. Kerala State

Kerala HC15 Oct 2018Bail Appl./3910/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application filed by the 2nd accused in a cheating case alleging role in fraud for job visas. Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail on non-custodial conditions requiring appearance during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, appearance before IO every Saturday, and conditions against inducement and similar offences.

Vimala Franklin Vs Kerala State — 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

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 23RD ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3910 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1296/2017 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

VIMALA FRANKLIN, AGED 43, W/O.FRANKLIN, FRANCIS VILLA, KAVANADU, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

1 KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, -682031.

¶12

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶17

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.1296 of

¶18

2017 registered at the Sakthikulangara Police Station under Sections 460 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶19

BA:3910/18

¶20

¶21

The de facto complainant alleges that acting on the words of the 1^st accused, who is the husband of the applicant herein, he had collected amounts from various persons on the assurance that they would be provided with a job VISA for employment in Europe. He collected a sum of Rs.40 lakhs and the same was handed over. On one occasion, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way of cash was handed over to the applicant herein as suggested by the 1^st accused. When the 1^st accused refused to provide the VISA as assured, a complaint was lodged based on which the aforesaid crime was registered.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent of all allegations. The applicant is a house wife and the mother of three children. Even according to the de facto complainant, the transactions were between him and the 1^st accused. The applicant was roped in solely on the ground that some amount was handed over to her as suggested by her husband.

¶23

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who, on instructions, submitted that some of the witnesses have stated that the applicant herein has also persuaded them to part with the amount. However, the de facto complainant has no such case. It is fairly submitted

¶24

BA:3910/18

¶25

¶26

that the main allegations are against the 1^st accused.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced and have

¶28

gone through the materials on record. The prosecution has no case that the applicant herein is involved in others crimes. Going by the complaint, her role appears to be minimal. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role assigned to the applicant herein, the materials in support thereof and attendant facts, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for an effective investigation.

¶29

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶31

ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

¶32

BA:3910/18

¶33

¶34

with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

krj

¶40

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Vimala Franklin v. Kerala State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimala Franklin v. Kerala State

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

Jose P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Shabeeb Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Geralad Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep P.N Vs State of Kerala

Suneesh Vs State of Kerala

Binu Vs the State of Kerala