Dismissed

George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2019Bail Appl./140/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposing of a bail application by an accused charged with cheating under Sections 406, 420 IPC. The accused had offered to refund recovered funds but failed to pay half the amount as directed by the court. Denying bail due to lack of bonafides and failure to discharge financial undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Bail application failed and was dismissed; the accused is denied pre-arrest bail.

George Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 140 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 385/2018 OF Vandiperiyar Police Station , Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶8

GEORGE

¶9

AGED 52 YEARS S/O JOSEPH, KUZHIPALAYIL HOUSE, CHAKKAKANAM, UPPUKANDAM KARA, ERATTAYAR VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶13

THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VANDIPERIYAR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2 MANOHARAN

¶15

S/O. SUKUMARAN, AALUVILA HOUSE, PRIYADARSHANI COLONY, GRAMBI KARA, MANJUMALA VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 508.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

PP AJITH MURALI

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Bail Appl..No. 140 of 2019

¶20

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the first accused in crime no.385/2018 of Vandiperiyar police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.

¶23

The allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the second respondent on an undertaking that he will make arrangements to send the daughter of the second respondent to Kuwait for nursing job. She could not procure the job. Contending that it was due to the change of law by the Central Government and that he has not willfully committed any cheating, the petitioner seeks bail. It was even offered that he was ready and willing to pay the entire money on or before 30.03.2019.

¶24

To evaluate the bonafides of the petitioner, he was directed to deposit half of the entire amount on or before 30.01.2019. Even though sufficient opportunities were granted and time limit extended, the petitioner has not remitted the money. This discloses that the petitioner has no intention to pay the money.

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 140 of 2019

¶26

¶27

Hence, the matter was heard on merits.

¶28

It seems that the petitioner has taken an undue

¶29

advantage. The nature of facts do not disclose that the petitioner is entitled for any discretionary relief.

¶30

Having considered this, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein. Hence the bail application fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

shg

George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George 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

Jose P.Samuel Vs State of Kerala

Sreeharshan K.G Vs State of Kerala

Suhaib Vs State of Kerala

Sipahi Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Shamas K.C., Vs State of Kerala

Thankappan, Vs State of Kerala