Allowed

Jinto v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2018Bail Appl./6778/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the sole accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. The court observed the dispute had a civil flavor and custodial interrogation was not required, imposing standard conditions including surrender for interrogation and execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail subject to appearance for interrogation, execution of bond if arrested, and non-involvement in other crimes.

Jinto 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

THURSDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6778 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 803/2018 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

JINTO, AGED 36 YEARS THERMADAM HOUSE, THALAKOTTUKARA DESOM, CHERANELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.VINAY RAMDAS SMT.K.B.ANAMIKA

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION IN THRISSUR DISTRICT IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE JFCM KUNNAMKULAM THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶12

PP. SRI. C. K PRASAD

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..No. 6778 of 2018

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.803/2018 of Kunnamkulam Police Station, for offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The allegation of the prosecution is that, the complainant handed over his car worth Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) to the petitioner herein for repairing the air-conditioner. The defacto complainant alleged that it was not returned. Hence, complaint was laid. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner herein seek bail. According to him, the matter was settled between the parties and the money was paid. Evidencing the settlement, an affidavit of the defacto complainant is produced as Annexure-A1.

¶19

It seems that the dispute between the parties has a flavour of a civil dispute. I do not feel that a custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein is required in connection with this crime. Hence, I am inclined to

¶20

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 6778 of 2018

¶22

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein on the following conditions:

¶23

(i) Petitioner shall appear before the investigation 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 executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶24

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶25

(iii) He shall not get involved in any other crime.

¶26

Anticipatory bail application is allowed as above.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

PA to Judge

¶31

R.AV

Jinto v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jinto 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Ibrahim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Chittar Police Station

Afeef Vs State of Kerala

Shakeena P Vs State of Kerala

Munasir Vs State of Kerala

Sreekrishnan R. @ Nandu Vs State of Kerala