Allowed

Renjith Ambadi, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018Bail Appl./5981/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In pre-arrest bail applications filed by two accused accused Nos 5 and 7 in a fake job and fraud case, the High Court granted bail pending investigation notwithstanding being board members, based on their denial of direct involvement and absence of specific allegations against them, subjecting them to conditions of interrogation and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties; petitioners to appear for interrogation and cooperate with investigation.

Renjith Ambadi, Vs the 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 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5981 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1748/2015 OF Fort Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:

¶8

RENJITH AMBADI, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.SURESHAN NAIR, THEKKEVILAKATH VEEDU, KULANGARAKONAM, MACHEL P.O., PIN-695571.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR SRI.RAJU GEORGE (KARUVATTA)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR

¶14

FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018,ALONG WITH B.A.6242/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 5981 & 6242 of 2018

¶19

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶23

MONDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶24

Bail Appl..No. 6242 of 2018

¶25

CRIME NO. 1748/2015 OF Fort Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶26

PETITIONER/7TH ACCUSED:

¶27

RAJESH AGED 36 YEARS S/O KUMARAPILLA T.C.39/1833 SIVABHAVAN

¶28

MANACAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR

¶30

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS:

¶31

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031

¶32

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶33

OTHER PRESENT:

¶34

PP AJITH MURALI

¶35

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018, ALONG WITH B.A.5981/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

Bail Appl..No. 5981 & 6242 of 2018

¶37

¶38

COMMON ORDER

¶39

The petitioners herein are accused No.5 and 7 respectively in crime No.1748/2015 of Fort police station, Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 406, 420 and 34 IPC.

¶40

The allegation of the prosecution is that a co-operative society was formed with the petitioners herein as the director board members and huge amounts were collected from several persons by offering them job. It was alleged that the appointments were given to few persons on the basis of the deposits made by them against non-sanctioned posts. It was also revealed that several records statutorily maintained by the society were not maintained and fraud was committed on several persons by this method. Crime was registered and accused no. 1 and 2 were arrested. Apprehending arrest accused no. 5 and 7 have approached this court.

¶41

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, they are not involved in any transaction, they have not offered job and

¶42

Bail Appl..No. 5981 & 6242 of 2018

¶43

¶44

none of the defacto complainants had any specific allegation against the petitioners herein.

¶45

According to the learned Public Prosecutor, huge amounts were collected by the accused. It seems that the main allegations are attributed to accused 1 and 2. Even in the complaint submitted by the defacto complainant the name of the petitioners herein are not mentioned. However according to the investigation agency, they are the members of the board of directors.

¶46

The question whether they have directly involved in the offences committed and whether the liability can be fastened on them is a matter of investigation. Considering the limited role attributed to the petitioners herein now, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners on the following conditions:

¶47

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10

¶48

days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of ₹.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two

¶49

Bail Appl..No. 5981 & 6242 of 2018

¶50

¶51

sureties for the like sum each.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

(iv) It is made clear that the pre-arrest bail is granted on the basis of the available materials. If more evidence regarding the direct participation of the petitioners or any of them is revealed, the investigating agency will be entitled for seek for a modification of this order.

SD/

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

shg

Renjith Ambadi, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith Ambadi, v. the 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

Jayaram.v Iyyer Vs State of Kerala

S.L.P. Kunhibi @ Kunjalima Vs State of Kerala

Sasi @ Sivaramakrishnan Vs Deepa

Lithin Vs the State of Kerala

Babu T.D. @ Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Chandran Vs State of Kerala