Dismissed

Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2018Bail Appl./4613/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala refused pre-arrest bail to the petitioner accused of cheating and forgery under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The court held that given the gravity of allegations and lack of completed investigation, the Bail Application under Section 438 CrPC was not a fit case for grant.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to surrender to jurisdictional court without delay.

Babu 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 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 13TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4613 of 2017 --------------------CRIME NO. 1105/2017 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

BABU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ARUMUGHAN, MATTUMMEL HOUSE, PERUMPADANNA, N. PARAVUR, NOW RESIDING AT METHER NAGAR, KALAMASSERY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV,

¶9

SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.D.FEROZE.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM- 682 031, (CRIME NO. 1105/2017 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

¶12

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 513, (CRIME NO. 1105/2017 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

¶13

ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED

¶14

3. LALU M.T., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, MUKKATH HOUSE, PERUMBADANNA, N. PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/01/2018 IN CRL.MA. NO.7624/2017.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI. ADDL. R3 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶19

B.A. No.4613 of 2017

¶20

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2018

¶21

ORDER

¶22

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.1105 of 2017 of the North Paravur Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under sections 406 & 420 of the IPC.

¶24

3.According to the de facto complainant, who is an NRI, the petitioner was his close friend. In the year 2012, he purchased an Innova Car bearing registration No.KL 07 BP 9669 from its previous owner, one Noushad for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs. The ownership was also transferred to his name. As the de facto complainant had to go abroad, he entrusted the vehicle with the petitioner herein in the month of October, 2015. The petitioner assured him that he would ply the car and the

¶25

BA 4613/2017

¶26

¶27

earnings would be transferred to the account of the de facto complainant. The amount used to be regularly remitted till May, 2016 and thereafter it was defaulted. On further enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner herein had transferred the vehicle to strangers by forging and manipulating the signature of the de facto complainant. On these allegations, a complaint was filed based on which the aforesaid crime was registered.

¶28

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations are absolutely incorrect. According to the learned counsel the vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner by the de facto complainant in the year 2015 and substantial amounts were paid. A sum of Rs.1 lakh remains due which prompted the de facto complainant to twist the facts and get the crime registered.

¶29

5.The de facto complainant has entered appearance through counsel. The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is refuted by the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant. It is submitted that on 16.12.2015, the vehicle was illegally transferred by the

¶30

BA 4613/2017

¶31

¶32

petitioner to one Vijayan and during this period the de facto complainant was abroad. For transferring the vehicle, Form 29 and 30 were forged and was submitted before the registering authority.

¶33

6.The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that investigation conducted till date reveals the complicity of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner that the vehicle was sold by the de facto complainant to him in the year 2015 remains unsubstantiated. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, investigation is in the early stages and granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner will not be in the interest of justice.

¶34

7.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, it does not appear to me that this is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein.

¶35

8.The learned counsel prays that a direction be issued to enable the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional court. I do not see any need for issuance of any such directions. The

¶36

BA 4613/2017

¶37

¶38

petitioner shall surrender before the jurisdictional court as expeditiously as possible and if an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits.

¶39

This petition is dismissed.

¶40

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶41

vps 5/1

¶42

/True Copy/ PS to Judge

Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu 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

Syam Chellappan Vs State of Kerala

Karingali Sainudheen Vs the State of Kerala

Renjith @ Swamikuttan Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Nishad K.H Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Irfan Vs State of Kerala