Dismissed

Dudu Jonald Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8311/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused facing charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The court denied pre-arrest bail as investigation was in early stages and it did not appear to be a fit case.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender as expeditiously as possible.

Dudu Jonald Jose 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 15TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8311 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO.291/2017 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

DUDU JONALD JOSE, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.JOSE KARINOORIL, KILIROOR KARA, KANJIRAM P.O., THIRUVARPU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.ELIAS ZACHARIA

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶16

B.A No.8311 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

2.The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime No.291 of 2017 of Kottayam East Police Station registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

¶21

3.The petitioner herein was employed as the ATM/CIT( Cashin-Transit) operator of Writer Safe Guard Private Limited, Perunna. The said company specializes in secure movement of cash between Banks, retail outlets and consumers. It appears that the Kerala State beverages Corporation had engaged the service of the Company for safe movement of cash between their retail outlets to the Bank. According to the de facto complainant, who is the Branch Manger, Writer Safe Guard Private Ltd., Perunna, the petitioner was authorized to take custody of cash from the beverages outlet at Nagampadom and remit the same in the Federal Bank, KSRTC Branch. The petitioner allegedly received a sum of

¶22

B.A No.8311 of 2017

¶23

¶24

Rs.24,00,890/- from the Beverages Corporation Outlet at Nagampadom and instead of remitting the entire amount with the Federal Bank, fraudulently misappropriated a sum of Rs.15,16,500/-.

¶25

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is merely a trainee and he was not empowered to receive cash as alleged. A large scale fraud was committed by the permanent staff and the petitioner was made to shoulder the blame. It is submitted that under threat and undue influence he was made to sign on some papers and valuable securities were also obtained from him. Asserting the innocence of the petitioner, the learned counsel prays for issuance of appropriate orders.

¶26

5.The learned public prosecutor referring to the case diary submitted that the petitioner is not as innocent as it is made out to be. It was submitted that the investigation has revealed the complicity of the petitioner and it was he who had accepted the cash from the beverages outlet. Investigation is in the early stages and it is submitted that grant of pre-arrest orders may adversely affect the investigation.

¶27

B.A No.8311 of 2017

¶28

¶29

6.Having considered the submissions advanced and after going

¶30

through the case diary, it does not appear that this is a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶31

7.The learned counsel prays that a direction be issued to enable the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional court. I do not see any need for issuance of any such directions. The petitioner shall surrender as expeditiously as possible and if an application for bail is filed, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed on its merits.

¶32

This petition is dismissed.

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶34

ps/5/1/2017

Dudu Jonald Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dudu Jonald Jose 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

Siju Vs State of Kerala

P v Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Johny Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mangattu Vs State of Kerala

Shani Mon Vs State of Kerala

Narayanan T Vs State of Kerala