Allowed

C.P.Prakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2018Bail Appl./4721/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the Court granted bail to the accused involved in cheating-related crimes. Pre-arrest bail is allowed without custodial interrogation subject to specific cooperation conditions and a bond.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed. Applicant to undergo interrogation. If arrested, to be released on bail with a bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties subject to conditions of cooperation and conduct.

C.P.Prakash 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4721 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 217/2018 OF Rajakkad Police Station , Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

C.P.PRAKASH AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.PRABHAKARAN, CHIRACKAL HOUSE, ELAMKULAM P.O., ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.JIJI SRI.PRATHEESH PRABHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR B. JAYASURYA.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2018, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4692/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No. 4721 of 2018

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No. 217 of 2018 registered at the Rajakkad Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, he is being proceeded against for having committed offences punishable under §420 of the IPC.

¶19

According to the prosecution, the applicant herein is a contractor. On 16.06.2018, the applicant purchased building materials from the shop of the de facto complainant worth about Rs.2,17,020/- and failed to effect payment for the same.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the materials were purchased by one Anish, who was his sub-contractor. According to the learned counsel, he has already initiated a complaint before the local police against the sub-contractor.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that Crime No.300/2018 of Vellathooval Police Station has been registered as against the applicant herein for his failure to carry out the construction of the residential building after receiving a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-.

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 4721 of 2018

¶23

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced and have

¶25

gone through the materials on record. It appears that two crimes have been registered against the applicant herein. One is at the instance of the building owner, who had advanced sum of Rs.3,40,000/- to the applicant. The 2^nd crime is at the instance of the hardware merchant, who claims that goods worth Rs.2,17,000/- was purchased and the amount was not paid. On going through the records, it appears that both crimes are inter related. Having considered the facts and circumstances and taking note of the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that the applicant herein is not involved in any similar crimes, I am of the view that by imposing appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution, the applicant can be granted an order of pre-arrest bail as his custodial interrogation in the instant case does not appear to be required.

¶26

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 he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the

¶27

Bail Appl..No. 4721 of 2018

¶28

¶29

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) He 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.

¶32

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

¶33

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶34

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the

¶35

application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶36

SD/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Dxy

¶40

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

C.P.Prakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Prakash 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

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Thomas P.J. Vs the State of Kerala

Sujith S. Vs State of Kerala