Allowed

Prasanthan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2018Bail Appl./5442/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed by an accused alleged to have misappropriated funds from a cooperative society. The accused argued that he collected money but deposited it the next day. The court directed him to surrender within 10 days and produce account books as evidence before release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties for ₹50,000 each, conditioned on surrendering to the I.O. within 10 days and submitting documentary evidence.

Prasanthan 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

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 5442 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO. 1107/2018 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

PRASANTHAN S/O.PARAMU, AGED 50 YEARS, MEENU VILASOM, MANALIPACHA, MANALIL P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691312.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUNALUR POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.1107/2018), PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶11

PP AJITH MURALI

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Bail Appl..No. 5442 of 2018

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1107/2018 of Punalur Police Station, Kollam District for offences punishable under Sections 403, 408 and 420 of IPC. The petitioner herein while employed in Punalur SC/ST Service Cooperative Society, collected money from various members either by deposits or towards MDS and without depositing it in the account of the Society, misappropriated it. It is stated that a total sum of ₹5,17,628/- was misappropriated. Private complaint was laid, which was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Apprehending arrest, petitioner seeks bail.

¶17

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was working on a temporary basis in the above Society and after his termination he was directed to continue on daily wages. Whatever amount he collected, he used to remit properly in the account on the next day and only consolidated

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 5442 of 2018

¶19

¶20

receipts were issued to him. Only by reference of the ledgers and entries in the books of the Society, he would be able to identify whether the amount collected from the specified members mentioned in the private complaint had been remitted or not. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is in possession of about 1000 receipts evidencing the deposit on various dates. Learned counsel produced some receipts at the time of hearing. Evidently, if some amount has been collected from the members and corresponding entries are not made, definitely the petitioner is answerable. Only on a thorough examination of the available records, this can be identified. Since the petitioner is out of employment now, I feel that he did not have an opportunity to verify the records. Essentially,

¶21

the dispute is on the basis of the accounts maintained. Having considered these facts, I am inclined to direct the petitioner to surrender

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 5442 of 2018

¶23

¶24

before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today.

¶25

3. After interrogation, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each. He shall appear and continue to appear before the Investigating Officer and shall furnish the documents which he is relying on, to substantiate his contention. If in the course of investigation, clinching materials are brought out to establish the culpability of the petitioner, nothing prevents

¶26

the Investigating Officer from seeking a modification of this order.

¶27

Bail application stands allowed accordingly.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶30

Pn 10/12

Prasanthan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanthan 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

Ajay Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Rajan.v Vs the State of Kerala

Vinish Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Jishnu Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Ajoy L.S. Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan.C.K Vs the State of Kerala