Allowed

Suneeshkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1496/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the fourth accused. Considering the nature of charges and lack of prior criminal record, the court granted bail with conditions regarding reporting, non-interference, and abstaining from other offences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on execution of bond with two sureties of Rs.40,000/- each, subject to reporting and non-interference conditions.

Suneeshkumar 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

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

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1496 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.2474/2018 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

SUNEESHKUMAR AGED 41 YEARS S/O.T.G. SOMAN, MANGALASSERY, PUNNAPRA NORTH P.O, ALAPPUZHA,

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKUAM-682031.

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683522.

¶14

**3 ADDL.R3 BINEESH. S/O RAJAPPAN, MARIYELIL HOUSE, MUTHAMKUZHI, PINDIMANA, KOTHAMANGALAM-683512. ***(ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.3.2019 IN CRL.MA 1/2019.**

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

Bail Appl..No. 1496 of 2019

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the fourth accused in Crime No.2474 of 2018 of Kothamangalam Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 420 and 120(B) read with Section 34 IPC.

¶21

The petitioner has filed this application under

¶22

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶25

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

¶26

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:

¶27

The first and the second accused purchased a

¶28

Bail Appl..No. 1496 of 2019

¶29

¶30

Skoda car for Rs.31,78,482/- for the defacto complainant by availing a loan from HDFC bank. The defacto complainant handed over all the documents with the petitioner herein, who is an employee of HDFC bank, before he left for abroad, for the purpose of sanctioning the loan. The petitioner herein handed over the said documents to the bank and on the strength of the said documents, the loan was availed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of purchasing the car. The first and the second accused impersonated themselves as the defacto complainant and his wife and forged the signatures of the defacto complainant and his wife. There is no allegation that the petitioner forged any signature. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner handed over the

¶31

¶32

Bail Appl..No. 1496 of 2019

¶33

documents, which were entrusted by the defacto complainant, to the bank. It is further alleged that it was with the aid of the petitioner that the application forms were filled up and signed by the first and the second accused. After purchasing the car, the first and the second accused sold the car to the third party. However, the amount received as sale consideration was not given to the defacto complainant. They also did not repay the loan amount to the bank. In the said circumstances, the defacto complainant sustained a loss to the tune of Rs. 39,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Only). All the documents pertaining to the loan transaction are available with the bank. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not

¶34

¶35

Bail Appl..No. 1496 of 2019

¶36

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 in this case.

¶37

In the result, this application stands allowed and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.2474 of 2018 of Kothamangalam 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 like sum to the satisfaction of the second respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further

¶38

Bail Appl..No. 1496 of 2019

¶39

¶40

conditions:-

¶41

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

¶42

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

RK/05.04.2019

Suneeshkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneeshkumar 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

Jojo Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Vamban Hamza Vs the Sho, Irikkur Police Station

Murali, Vs State