Allowed

P v. Suresh v State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8178/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to petitioner P. V. Suresh accused of offences under sections 406, 420 and 467 of the IPC involving alleged misappropriation of Rs.25 Lakhs from a temple account, subject to specific conditions ensuring investigation cooperation and surrender compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; bail granted subject to executing a bond for Rs.40,000 with two sureties and complying with conditions regarding investigation attendance and non-interference.

P v Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 14TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8178 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO. 678/2017 OF VELLATHUVAL POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

P. V. SURESH, S/O.K.N.VIJAYAN PILLAI, PLACHERIL HOUSE, ADIMALY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANJAY

¶10

SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, THROUGH S.I. OF POLICE, VELLATHUVAL POLICE STATION.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SAJJU

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶17

B.A. No.8178 of 2017

¶18

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2018

¶19

ORDER

¶20

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

2.The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.678 of 2017 of the Vellathuval Police Station registered alleging offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 467 of the IPC.

¶22

3.The aforesaid crime was registered based on a complaint filed by the present president of the Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangham before the learned Magistrate. According to the de facto complainant, the accused was the chairman of the administrative committee of the Anachal Temple Shakha committee from 26.10.2014 till 6.6.2017. During the said period, he is alleged to have manipulated accounts and managed to misappropriate a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs from the accounts of the temple.

¶23

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner are absolutely

¶24

BA 8178/2017 2

¶25

false. According to the learned counsel, he is an active member of the Akhila Bharatha Ayyappa Seva Sangham for the past 30 years. Taking note of his service, he was appointed as Administrator in the place of tainted officers who were in charge of the administration till then. On 19.6.2017, the petitioner was wrongfully restrained by certain persons which included the de facto complainant and he was threatened with bodily harm. He was made to sign on various documents. Immediately thereafter, he lodged a complaint before the Police. When no action was taken, he filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate Adimali and proceedings are pending. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner herein filed Annexure-II writ petition before this Court complaining of police harassment. Later, he moved Annexure-III application seeking pre-arrest bail. But on the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that no crime has been registered, the same was closed. According to the learned counsel, all the records are available in the temple and a proper audit of the same would reveal that the allegations are false.

¶26

BA 8178/2017

¶27

¶28

5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the materials on record.

¶29

6.The aforesaid crime was registered on the strength of a private complaint. Dispute concerns the management of the finance of a temple during the period in which the petitioner was the Chairman of the Administrative Committee. The materials produced by the petitioner reveals that there exists a long term feud between two factions.

¶30

7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction would entail, the character and antecedents of the petitioner, the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice and other facts and circumstances, it does not appear that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted in the instant case. I am of the view that the relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioners.

¶31

8.In the result, this petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i)The 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

¶33

BA 8178/2017

¶34

¶35

bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶36

ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of one month or till the filing of the filing report, which ever is earlier.

¶37

iii) The petitioner 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.

¶38

iv) The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶39

v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶40

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶41

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶42

vps 6/1

P v. Suresh v State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P v. Suresh 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

Lalu Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Nishad K.H Vs State of Kerala

Siju Vs State of Kerala

Johny Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Samraj Vs State of Kerala