Allowed

Jojo Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1429/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC allowed bail application of Jojo Joseph, Store-Head of Malabar Gold and Diamonds, accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Court held no recovery needed from petitioner and custodial interrogation unnecessary, granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. with surety and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on execution of bond Rs.40,000/- with two solvents, reporting every Monday and conditions to keep peace and not tamper investigation.

Jojo Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1429 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1810/2016 OF Kottayam West Police Station , Kottayam

¶7

PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOJO JOSEPH AGED 44 YEARS,S/O. JOSEPH, NJALOOR HOUSE, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENT/S/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKAULM - 682 031.(CRIME NO. 1810/2016 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686001(CRIME NO. 1810/2016 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM DISTRICT).

¶13

3 ADDL.R3 NOUFAL SHERIF AGED 34 YEARS, S/O HAGI K.A, SHERIF KUTTY, SHALIMAR HOUSE, PUZHAVATH KARA, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM WEST, KOTTAYAM686001. (Addl.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.3.2019 IN CRL.MA 01/2019.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 1429 of 2018

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime

¶20

No.1810 of 2016 of Kottayam West Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 406

¶21

and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

The prosecution allegation can be briefly

¶23

stated thus:

¶24

The petitioner was the Store-Head of Malabar Gold and Diamonds, Kottayam. The petitioner sold gold ornaments to the first accused against the credit policy of Malabar Gold and Diamonds, during the period 2015 - 2016 and thereby caused a loss to the tune of Rupees Two Crores to the Malabar Gold and

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 1429 of 2018

¶26

¶27

Diamonds.

¶28

The petitioner has filed this application under

¶29

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

Heard.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶32

that the petitioner is not involved in any other offence of similar nature.

¶33

As per the direction of this Court, additional

¶34

third respondent has been also impleaded. The petition leading to the registration of the above crime was initiated by the third respondent. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the third respondent that the gold was sold to the first accused on credit basis,

¶35

only after getting permission from the Head Office.

¶36

¶37

Bail Appl..No. 1429 of 2018

¶38

It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the first accused, namely, Sharmila had committed similar kind of offences by purchasing gold on credit basis from some other Jewellery also. There is no allegation that the petitioner misappropriated any amount. The only allegation is that the petitioner sold gold ornaments to the first accused on credit basis against the credit policy of the institution. Having gone through the relevant inputs, it appears that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. That apart, the petitioner is not having any criminal antecedent. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified .

¶39

In the result, this application stands allowed and

¶40

¶41

Bail Appl..No. 1429 of 2018

¶42

the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to release the

¶43

petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.1810 of 2016 of Kottayam

¶44

West Police Station, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the

¶45

like sum to the satisfaction of the second respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten

¶46

days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶47

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for four months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶48

Bail Appl..No. 1429 of 2018

¶49

¶50

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or

¶51

influence the witnesses or in any way tamper

¶52

with the investigation.

¶53

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

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

RK/05.04.2019

Jojo Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jojo Joseph 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

Akhil, Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ranji Vs Kodakara Police Station

Vamban Hamza Vs the Sho, Irikkur Police Station

Murali, Vs State

Suneeshkumar Vs State of Kerala