Allowed

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jan 2018Bail Appl./8826/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by an accused in a cheating case involving a chity concern. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted and granted bail subject to standard conditions including cooperation and non-inducement.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on bond of Rs.40,000 with two sureties for the same, subject to conditions including reporting to IO within 10 days and non-inducement.

Shaji Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 19TH POUSHA, 1939 Bail Appl..No. 8826 of 2017

¶5

CRIME NO. 2001/2017 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶6

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

¶7

SHAJI, AGED 49 YEARS, ALIKKAL HOUSE, KANIPPAYYUR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.V.C.SARATH SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN SMT.POOJA PANKAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

mbr/

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶15

B.A.No.8826 of 2017

¶16

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.2001 of 2017 of the Kunnamkulam Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

¶20

3.The petitioner was running a chity concern in the name and style as 'Orange' and de facto complainant is a subscriber. According to her, she remitted monthly instalments from 2008 onwards. It is her case that a total sum of Rs.19,00,000/- is due from the petitioner to the de facto complainant, out of which a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid.

¶21

Rest of the amount is due for which the complaint was filed and the crime was consequently registered.

¶22

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegations are not supported by any documentary evidence. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein is prepared to cooperate with the investigation and in the facts

¶23

B.A.No. 8826 of 2017 2

¶24

and circumstances, he may be spared from the rigors of custodial interrogation.

¶25

5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well and I have gone through the case diary.

¶26

6.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations,

¶27

the materials in support thereof, antecedents of the petitioner 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 petitioner.

¶28

7.In the result, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions.

¶29

i).The petitioner shall appear before the investigating 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.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶30

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶31

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

¶32

B.A.No. 8826 of 2017 3

¶33

the court or to any police officer.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶37

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶38

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶39

//True Copy\

¶40

P.A to Judge

¶41

IAP

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji 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

James @ John K John Vs State of Kerala

Nheru Ibrahim Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Jayalal J Vs State of Kerala

Aloshious .L. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ajesh@Appu Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala