Allowed

Hamsa Thottiyil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2019Bail Appl./1402/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. against charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary as the petitioner was already in custody for other connected cases, granting bail on Rs. 30,000 bond with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail on security of Rs. 30,000 with two solvent sureties on conditions of reporting to IO and not interfering with investigation.

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

¶1

B.A.1402/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019/24TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

Bail Appl.No.1402 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 3/2018 of SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI DATED 16-02-2018

¶9

CRIME NO.138/CR/OCW-I/111/PKD/2016 OF CBCID, MALAPPURAM

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

HAMSA THOTTIYIL, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, THOTTIYIL HOUSE, PARAPOR P.O., KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.K.VARGHESE THOMAS SRI.V.VINAY

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031(CRIME NO.138/CR/OC2-I/111/PKD/2016 OF CBCID, OCW, MALAPPURAM).

¶15

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CBCI, OCW, MALAPPURAM,(CRIME NO.138/CR/OCW-

¶16

B.A.1402/2018

¶17

¶18

I/111/PKD/2016 OF CBCID, OCW, MALAPPURAM).

¶19

3 ADDL.R3. SAINUDHEEN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O MOHAMMED @KUNHAPPU, MOYATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, KUTTIPPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶20

ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.3.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA1402/2018.

¶21

R1 AND R2 BY SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SMT.V.O.PHILOMINA

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.1402/2018

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 5^th accused in

¶27

Crime No.138/CR/OCW-I/III/PKD/2016 of Crime Branch, Palakkad, registered under Sections 406, 420 and 411 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶28

2. The petitioner has filed this

¶29

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

3. Heard.

¶31

4. It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there are three cases against the petitioner and the other accused. All the said cases were being investigated by the same Crime Branch from 24.10.2016 on-wards.

¶32

The only offence alleged against the

¶33

B.A.1402/2018

¶34

¶35

petitioner is the offence under Section 411 IPC. The petitioner was in custody in the other cases during January, 2018, which was during the pendency of the investigation in this case. However, the petitioner was not formally arrested in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioner was in custody in connection with the other two cases during the pendency of the investigation in this case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶36

In the result, this application

¶37

B.A.1402/2018

¶38

¶39

stands allowed and it is directed to

¶40

release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above said crime on condition of the

¶41

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 the 2^nd respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:

¶42

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶43

(ii) The petitioner shall not

¶44

B.A.1402/2018

¶45

¶46

intimidate or influence the

¶47

witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶48

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶51

Hamsa Thottiyil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamsa Thottiyil 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

Kunhavu Kummil Vs State of Kerala

Lincy Issac, Vs State of Kerala

Gireesh C., Vs State of Kerala

Shanoop.P.a, Vs State of Kerala

Jincy Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Sreehari Bose, Vs State of Kerala