Allowed

Biju.C.Abraham, v. Sub Inspetor of Police

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019Bail Appl./1547/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by Biju C Abraham, the 1st accused in a cheating case. The High Court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as the accused offered to repay the money within three months, and granted pre-arrest bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail on executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- with two sureties, to report to the Investigating Officer every Monday for four months.

Biju.C.Abraham, Vs Sub Inspetor of Police — 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1547 of 2019

¶6

(CRIME NO.281/2019 OF PALARIVATTAM POLICE STATION)

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

BIJU.C.ABRAHAM, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.P.V.ABRAHAM, CHOOLAKKAL HOUSE MANIYAR.P.O, AREEKKAKAVU, VADASSERIKKARA VILLEGE, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 SUB INSPETOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 028.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

ADDL. HARI BHASKAR V., S/O LATE. BHASKARA GUPTHAN, R3 AGED 44 YEARS, TREASURER, ARYANET TRUST, ASHTAMIROHINI, KADAMPAZHIPURAM, PALAKKAD-678033.

¶14

ADDL. AJITH KUMAR, R4 S/O KRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 55 YEARS, IKRISHNAVILASAM HOUSE, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683540.

¶15

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AND R4 AS PER ORDER DATED 28.3.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019.

¶16

BY ADVS. ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION SRI.PRATHAP. S.R.K. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY SMT.G.BINDU SRI.C.K.SURESH,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

-2-

¶19

Bail Appl..No.1547 of 2019

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime

¶22

No.281/2019 of Palarivattom Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420

¶23

read with Section 34 IPC.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that the

¶25

petitioner and the 3^rd accused collected a total amount of Rs.25 lakhs from respondent Nos.3 and 4 towards

¶26

initial expenses for arranging a loan of Rs.200 Crores. However, the loan as promised was not arranged.

¶27

The petitioner has filed this application under

¶28

Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶29

Heard.

¶30

It appears that the petitioner is the proprietor

¶31

of M/s.Green Land Business Ventures, Vennala. The

¶32

-3-

¶33

Bail Appl..No.1547 of 2019

¶34

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is prepared to repay the amount to the

¶35

3^rd and 4^th respondents within three months. The learned advocates for respondent Nos.3 and 4 have submitted that since an assurance was given by the petitioner to their clients that the amount would be repaid within three months, they are not opposing this application. Having gone through the relevant inputs, 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 stands allowed and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in the above said crime, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty

¶37

-4-

¶38

Bail Appl..No.1547 of 2019

¶39

Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 1^st respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if

¶40

not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the

¶41

following further conditions:

¶42

The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for four months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶43

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

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Nkr/18.06.19

Biju.C.Abraham, v. Sub Inspetor of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biju.C.Abraham, v. Sub Inspetor of Police

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

Hamsa Thottiyil Vs State of Kerala

Shanoop.P.a, Vs State of Kerala

Jincy Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Sijo Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Vs State of Kerala