Allowed

Pratheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2019Bail Appl./1588/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by a petitioner accused of forgery and misappropriation in a gold business case. The court directed the release of the petitioner on bail with specific conditions, including reporting to the IO and not interfering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with condition of executing bond for Rs.35,000/- with two sureties and surrendering within ten days.

Pratheesh Kumar 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 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1588 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 327/2019 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 20-02-2019

¶7

CRIME NO. 601/2018 OF Mannarkkad Police Station , Palakkad

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

PRATHEESH KUMAR AGED 24 YEARS S/O. TULASIDAS, PAKKATH PUTHENVEETIL (H), MANJAKALLU P.O, CHERUPPALASSERY, PALAKKADU.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31

¶13

2 ADDL.R2 IBRAHIMKUTTI. S/O HAIDROSS MUSLIYAR, CHAIRMAN, BEUTYMARK GOLD, MANNARKKAD, MANNARGHAT, PALAKKAD, KERALA, INDIA, IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 28/3/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Case No. BA 1588/19

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.601 of 2018 of Mannarkadu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 201 and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that during the period from 2015 to 2018, the petitioners and the other accused, who were the employees of the de-facto complainant, misappropriated huge amount by forging bills of gold ornaments pledged by the customers. The accused also siphoned the amount from the inactive accounts of Advance Gold Purchase Plan subscribed by the customers and thereby, the de-facto complainant sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs.

¶21

Case No. BA 1588/19

¶22

-3-

¶23

The petitioner has filed this application praying for

¶24

the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶25

Heard

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

¶27

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

¶28

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent has opposed the application. It appears that all the documents

¶29

relating to the forgery are available with the de-facto complainant. The computers used to commit forgery are also available with the de-facto complainant. In the said circumstances, 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 has no criminal antecedent. In the said

¶30

Case No. BA 1588/19

¶31

circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

¶32

In the result, this application stands allowed and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above crime on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, Mannarkadu Police Station, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for three months and

¶34

Case No. BA 1588/19

¶35

-5-

¶36

thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation. (ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶37

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

¶38

sd B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶39

dl/

Pratheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratheesh Kumar 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

Khadija Vs State of Kerala & Another

N.P.Thomas, Vs Station House Officer

R.Suresh, Vs State of Kerala

Lt.Col. James Wesley Hunt (Retd) Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasack, Vs the Station Hose Officer

Fazil Vs the State of Kerala