Allowed

Suresh Gopi v. Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC10 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8669/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed a bail application filed by a Member of Parliament and film actor accused of cheating and forgery. The court imposed strict conditions including immediate appearance for interrogation, cooperation with the investigation, and a financial bond to prevent absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail on execution of a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to appearing for interrogation and cooperating with investigation.

Suresh Gopi Vs Superintendent of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017 / 20TH POUSHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8669 of 2017

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

CRIME NO. 327/CR/STATS/TVPM OF 2017 OF CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THIRUVANANDAPURAM DISTRICT

¶8

------------

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

¶10

SURESH GOPI,AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.K.GOPINATHAN PILLAI,D-9 LAKSHMI, TEMPLE ROAD,SASTHAMANGALAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR

¶12

SMT.MEGHA MUKUNDASWAR SMT.DHANYA PALAN SRI.TINU T.JOSEPH

¶13

RESPONDENTS :

¶14

1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶15

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHI (DGP)

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2017,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

RAJA VIJAYAR.AGHAVAN V, J

¶20

B.A No. 8669 of 2017

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2018

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

2.The petitioner herein has been arrayed as the accused in Crime No.327/CR/STATS/TVPM of 2017 registered on 01.12.2017 alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

¶25

3.The petitioner owns two luxury cars bearing registration Nos. PY -01- BA- 0999 and PY-05-A-0099 manufactured by the German Manufacturer, Audi. The said cars have been registered in the year 2010 and 2016 respectively in the Union Territory of Puducherry. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Thiruvananthapuram in the State of Kerala and the said cars were registered at Puducherry by furnishing a false address and by forging documents. The said vehicles are being used exclusively for his travel purposes in the State. By the acts of the petitioner, huge loss was sustained to the State, for, in Puducherry the tax is capped at Rs. One Lakh irrespective

¶26

B.A No.8669 of 2017 2

¶27

of the value of the vehicle whereas in the State of Kerala, 20% of the vehicle value is to be remitted by way of Tax. On these allegations, a complaint was furnished by the Regional Transport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram based on which the aforesaid crime was registered .

¶28

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations have no basis or truth. It is argued that the petitioner is a Member of Parliament and a film actor. The petitioner and his wife owns large tracts of agricultural land in the Union Territory and for tending to agricultural operations he has taken on lease an apartment near to the ECR road from Chennai to Puducherry. It is submitted that the petitioner frequents all the southern states of the Country frequently in connection with his avocation. He also has to oversee the agricultural activities being conducted in the property purchased by him. Reference is made to Annexure- A4 to A7 which are his documents of title to substantiate the above submissions. It is asserted that the brothers of the petitioner have places of abode at Coimbatore and Tuticorn and the petitioner frequently visits those places as well. To substantiate that the petitioner has

¶29

B.A No.8669 of 2017 3

¶30

taken on rent an apartment at Puducherry, the learned counsel relies on Annexure-A8 to A 10 . It is submitted that one of the vehicles is permanently kept at Puducherry and the other vehicle is being used by the petitioner in Delhi for his personal use. On occasions the petitioner has used the vehicle in this State as well. According to the learned counsel, the allegations of fabrication and forgery are without basis. The learned counsel urges that the accusations have been made solely with the object of humiliating the petitioner by arresting him. The antecedents of the petitioner and his position as a Member of Parliament

¶31

is highlighted to contend that there cannot be any apprehension that he would abscond or tamper with the evidence. It is prayed that the petitioner be spared of the humiliation and ignominy that would befall on him in the event of his arrest and remand to custody.

¶32

5.The learned Public Prosecutor has very vehemently opposed

¶33

the submissions of the learned counsel. It is submitted that investigation is in the infancy stage and the materials that have been collected till date reveals that all is not well. There are materials to suggest that the petitioner has

¶34

B.A No.8669 of 2017 4

¶35

managed to evade payment of tax by ingenious means and only a meticulous investigation would reveal the extent of fraud perpetrated. Arming the petitioner with an order of pre-arrest bail would adversely affect the investigation, according to the learned public prosecutor.

¶36

6.When the application was initially moved by the petitioner who apprehended arrest on receiving a notice issued under Section 41A, this Court by order dated 15.12.2017 had directed the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 21.12.2017 and to co-operate with the investigation. In terms of the directions issued by this Court the petitioner had appeared before the investigating officer and he was interrogated. It is however submitted by the learned public prosecutor that some of the documents produced by the petitioner before the Investigating officer are unrelated to the instant case.

¶37

7.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone

¶38

through the case diary. It cannot be doubted that the petitioner is a person having strong roots in the society. The allegation centers around the registration of two motor cars by the petitioner. Voluminous materials are produced by the

¶39

B.A No.8669 of 2017 5

¶40

petitioner to assert his innocence. It is by now settled that at the time of consideration of bail applications, Courts are not expected to discuss the merits or demerits of the evidence collected against the accused. A detailed examination of the evidence or an elaborate documentation of the merits of the case also has to be avoided.

¶41

8.Having given my anxious consideration to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the character and antecedents of the petitioner, the materials produced by him, the severity of the punishment which conviction would entail, the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice and other facts and circumstances, it does not appear to me 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 by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶42

9.In the result this petition will stand allowed. However it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶43

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 bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶44

B.A No.8669 of 2017

¶45

¶46

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 1.p.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶47

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.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

¶53

Suresh Gopi v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Gopi v. Superintendent of Police

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

Aloshious .L. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh@Appu Vs State of Kerala

Dasan Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

E.Mohiyudeen Vs the State of Kerala