Partly allowed

Ranji v. Kodakara Police Station

Kerala HC4 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1308/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a bail application seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for two petitioners in a cheating case involving fraudulent visa arrangements. While dismissing the application against the non-accused second petitioner, the court granted bail to the first petitioner, who is the accused's sister, considering her lack of involvement and clean record.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed against second petitioner; allowed against first petitioner with bond of Rs.30,000 and conditions to surrender and appear for interrogation.

Ranji Vs Kodakara Police Station — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1308 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 22/2019 OF Kodakara Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED A2 AND A3:

¶8

1 RANJI AGED 29 YEARS D/O.RAJAN, KARRIKULANGARA HOUSE, KUNDAYI DESAM, VARANDRAPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. (NOW RESIDING AT W/O.SATEESH, VALLAKUNNU DESOM, MURIYAD).

¶9

2 AJITHA RAJAN

¶10

AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.RAJAN KARRIKULANGARA HOUSE, KUNDAYI DESAM, VARANDARAPILLY VILLAGE, MUKUTHAPURAM THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.POLLY

¶12

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 KODAKARA POLICE STATION THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶14

2 ADDL.R2 SUBHASH AGED 48 YEARS, S/O RAMACHANDRANM, MANNATH VEEDU, ARIYANNUR DESOM, KANDUNISSERY PO, THRISSUR.

¶15

****(ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/3/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019.**

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.MARIAN G.M.THARAKAN

¶17

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.C.S.HRITHWICK

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Bail Appl..No. 1308 of 2019

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The first petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.22 of 2019 of Kodakara Police Station, registered

¶23

for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and

¶24

406 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶25

The petitioners have filed this application

¶26

under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

The prosecution allegation can be briefly

¶29

stated thus:

¶30

The first accused promised the defacto complainant and two other persons that he would arrange job visa for employment in Canada. On the

¶31

said promise, the first accused received a total amount

¶32

¶33

Bail Appl..No. 1308 of 2019

¶34

of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Only) from the defacto complainant and two of his friends together. It is alleged that after making promise by the first accused, the defacto complainant talked to the mother and sister of the first accused and they also assured that the visa would be arranged by the first accused. It is also alleged that the defacto complainant entrusted an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) with the mother and sister of the first accused. A copy of the petition filed by the second respondent before the District Superintendent of Police, Thrissur, has been produced before me for my perusal, which will form part of the records of this case. Having gone through the above said petition filed by the defacto complainant before the Superintendent of Police, it

¶35

¶36

Bail Appl..No. 1308 of 2019

¶37

appears that the entire transaction of the defacto

¶38

complainant and his friends was with the first accused. It further appears from the said petition that the mother and the sister of the first accused had no involvement at all in the commission of the offences alleged.

¶39

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶40

that the second petitioner is not an accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that there is no criminal antecedent against the first petitioner. The first petitioner is a lady, aged 29 years, who is the sister of the first accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of allegations, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the first petitioner is not necessary in this

¶41

¶42

Bail Appl..No. 1308 of 2019

¶43

case. That apart, there is no criminal antecedent against the first petitioner. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the first petitioner will be justified in this case. Since the second petitioner is not an accused in the crime, the bail application as regards the second petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

¶44

In the result, this application stands dismissed as regards the second petitioner and allowed as regards the first petitioner and the first respondent is directed to release the first petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.22 of 2019 of Kodakara Police Station, (presently, Crime No.47 of 2019 of Aloor Police Station) on condition of the first petitioner executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of

¶45

¶46

Bail Appl..No. 1308 of 2019

¶47

the Station House Officer, Aloor Police Station, before whom the first petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:

¶48

(i) The first petitioner shall report before the

¶49

Investigating Officer as and when required by

¶50

the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶51

(ii) The first petitioner shall not intimidate or

¶52

influence the witnesses or in any way tamper

¶53

with the investigation.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

RK/04.04.2019

Ranji v. Kodakara Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranji v. Kodakara Police Station

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

Sreekumar. H Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Shafeekh Vs State of Kerala

Akhil, Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Shaukathali Vs State of Kerala