Allowed

Manikuttan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Nov 2018Bail Appl./4178/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted pre-arrest bail to two accused officers of Supplyco Maveli Store charged with cheating, criminal breach of trust, and dishonest misappropriation involving a stock shortage. Conditions included appearance for interrogation and depositing recovered amounts. Anticipatory bail was also allowed.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to appearance for interrogation, depositing recovered amounts, and no involvement in other crimes. Anticipatory bail allowed.

Manikuttan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4178 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRL.MP 3300/2018 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 08-06-2018

¶7

CRIME NO. 588/2018 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 MANIKUTTAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. CHELLAPPAN VAISAKH, NEERKUNNAM, VANDANAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

2 SOORAJ, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. SOMAN, LADAPURATHCHIRA, KAINAKARY P.O., KUTTANADU, ALAPPUZHA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

PP AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No. 4178 of 2018

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.588/2018 of Alappuzha South Police Station for offences punishable under sections 406, 409 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The crux of the allegation is that the second accused is the Junior Assistant of Supplyco Maveli Store, Kavalam and the first accused is the Senior Assistant, Supplyco Department, Kavalam. In furtherance of their common object to act in combination, on 27.7.2017, the first accused made a false entry in his stock register that items worth Rs.30,352.65/- (Rupees thirty thousand three hundred and fifty two and sixty paise only) was forwarded to the Kavalam Branch. Entries were made in the records of the Kavalam branch regarding the receipt of the above items. But in fact the items were not received there. There was consequently a shortage of the items worth Rs.30,352.65/- (Rupees thirty thousand

¶22

¶23

Bail Appl..No. 4178 of 2018

¶24

three hundred and fifty two and sixty paise only). According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are innocent of the crime and virtually the Government has not lost any money.

¶25

It seems that though the allegation of the shortage of stock corresponding to the entries are made, I am inclined to hold that the custodial interrogation is not absolutely essential. Having considered it, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners herein on the following conditions:

¶26

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶27

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶28

(iii) They shall not get involved in any other crime.

¶29

This will not preclude the petitioners herein from

¶30

Bail Appl..No. 4178 of 2018

¶31

¶32

depositing the amount found in the internal audit or as found by the recovery officer.

¶33

Anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

R.AV

¶37

//True Copy//

¶38

PA to Judge

Manikuttan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikuttan 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

Senthil Vs State of Kerala

Jose Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Baiju C.D Vs State of Kerala

Sreerag Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Nazar @ Kolachi Nazar Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala