Allowed

V.R.Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Dec 2018Bail Appl./4937/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application regarding alleged misappropriation of temple funds and forgery under various IPC sections, the High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail after finding custodial interrogation not necessary.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned on appearing for interrogation within 10 days, executing a bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties, and not threatening witnesses.

V.R.Unnikrishnan 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4937 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 18/2018 OF CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 V.R.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

AGED 54 YEARS S/O.LATE P.R.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, KRISHNAKRIPA, SOUTH CHITTOOR.

¶10

2 PRATHEESH KUMAR

¶11

S/O.MURALEEDHARA MENON, AGED 48, SREEPADAM, SOUTH CHITTOOR.

¶12

3 RENJITH.T.R.

¶13

S/O.T.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 33, THUNDATHIL PARAMBIL SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O.,

¶14

KOCHI - 682 027.

¶15

4 SURESH MENON

¶16

S/O. C.A.S.MENON, AGED 55, ANJANAM, H.M.C., SOUTH CHITTOOR, KOCHI - 682 027.

¶17

5 DINESAN

¶18

S/O. T.S.RAGHAVAN, AGED 45,

¶19

RESIDING AT THUNDATHIL PARAMBIL, THEKKAN CHITTOOR.

¶20

6 SIMESH K.M. S/O. K.N.MADHAVAN, AGED 36, KALLAT HOUSE, VARMA ROAD, SOUTH CHITTOOR, KOCHI 682 027.

¶21

7 M.G.SUBRAMMANIAM, AGED 64, S/O. M.K.KRISHNAN, MADIYATHAZHATH, THEKKAN CHITTOOR.

¶22

8 V.K.SASI AGED 52, S/O. V.K.KUMARAN, VALLASSERIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., KOCHI - 682 027.

¶23

9 NARENDRAN.T.R. S/O.RAGHUVARAN K.V., AGED 52, AMBADY HOUSE, MYTHRI NAGAR ROAD, VADUTHALA.

¶24

Bail Appl..No. 4937 of 2018

¶25

¶26

10 K.K.SASINATH S/O. K.N.KRISHNAN KUTTY, AGED 44 YEARS, KALASOM HOUSE, V.I.P.LANE, OLANAD, VARAPUZHA P.O.

¶27

11 VIJAYAN MENON S/O. A.KUMARAN ACHAN, AGED 62, NELLUVELIL HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, KOCHI - 682 027.

¶28

12 RATHEESH.A.R. S/O. RAMAN.T.V., AGED 34, ALINGAL PADATH HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR P.O., KOCHI - 682 027.

¶29

BY ADVS. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI SRI.M.ASHOK KINI

¶30

RESPONDENTS:

¶31

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

¶32

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHERANALLOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM CITY, KOCHI - 682 034.

¶33

SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN

¶34

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

Bail Appl..No. 4937 of 2018

¶36

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 12 in Crime No.18/2018 of Cheranellur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469,

¶39

471, 472, 473, 477A and 34 of IPC. The allegation of the prosecution is that, petitioners being the former members of the Temple Advisory Committee of Chittoor Sree Krishna Swami Temple, misappropriated the funds, issued forged receipts and collected money and it was not properly accounted. Crime was registered and the investigation is going on. Petitioners apprehending arrest seek bail.

¶40

2. According to the de facto complainant, three specific allegations are made. Firstly, as per the decision of the Temple Advisory Committee 25% of the income collected were not utilised for

¶41

the development and maintenance of the Temple.

¶42

Bail Appl..No. 4937 of 2018

¶43

¶44

Secondly, regarding an oottupura constructed, the proper statement of expenditure were not produced before the Advocate Commissioner and before the Division Bench of this Court hearing the Devesom Board matters. Thirdly, it was contended that the petitioners forged certain receipts and collected money without accounting it in the Temple account.

¶45

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the funds of the temple is regularly audited and report submitted to the Division Bench. It seems that regarding the first two allegations, it is a matter of record. Regarding the third allegation, the question whether the forged receipts were issued initially depends on the counterfoils and the unused receipts handed over to the present Advisory

¶46

Committee. Even otherwise, if the receipts issued are found to be not the genuine one,

¶47

Bail Appl..No. 4937 of 2018

¶48

¶49

definitely the former members are bound and answerable. Considering the nature of allegations, I do not feel that a custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary. Hence, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶50

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail

¶51

application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶52

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of 40,000/- (Rupees₹ forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶53

(ii) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the

¶54

Bail Appl..No. 4937 of 2018

¶55

¶56

witnesses.

¶57

(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶60

Pn 06/12

V.R.Unnikrishnan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.R.Unnikrishnan 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

Anwar Vs State of Kerala

Aswathi Unnikrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

K. Abhilash Vs State of Kerala

Shafeela Vs the State of Kerala

Nazeema Vs State of Kerala

Mookaiah S. Vs State of Kerala