Allowed

Johnson Kappalumakkal, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2019Bail Appl./1874/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court granted anticipatory bail to the second accused in a cheating case involving chit funds, holding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as no recovery was required from him and he had no criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail with bond Rs.35,000 and two sureties subject to surrender within ten days and weekly reporting.

Johnson Kappalumakkal, 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 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1874 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 252/2019 OF Kannur City Police Station , Kannur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JOHNSON KAPPALUMAKKAL, AGED 50 YEARS S/O.JOHN KAPPALUMAKKAL, RESIDING AT THODAMCHAL, PARAPPA, KASARGOD - 671 533.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH KUM. KEERTHANA SUDEV SHRI. RALPH RETI JOHN SHRI.VISHNU CHANDRAN SRI.B.DEEPAK SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR - 682 031.

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 YOHANNAN MATHAI AGED 44, S/O MATHAI, RESIDING AT MATTATHIL (H), FAIRLAND COLONY, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, 673592, MANAGING DIRECTOR, DHANAKODI CHITS, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD-693592.

¶13

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5/04/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA-1874/2019.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) SRI.P.THOMAS GEEVERGHESE

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 1874 of 2019

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is the second accused in

¶21

Crime No.252/2019 of Kannur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶22

2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

¶23

The first accused was the cashier and the third accused was the Manager of the chitty company of the second respondent, who is the defacto complainant in this case. The first accused subscribed chit in the name of the petitioner herein, who is the husband of the first accused. The accused Nos.1 and 2 collected a total amount of

¶24

Rs.48,58,750/- by subscribing chits in the

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 1874 of 2019

¶26

-3-

¶27

name of the petitioner herein.

¶28

3. The petitioner has filed this

¶29

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

4. Heard.

¶31

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has

¶32

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

¶33

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent has submitted that all the documents relating to the transaction are available with the second respondent. Presently, the first accused is not in the employment of the second respondent.

¶34

7. Considering the facts and

¶35

circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the

¶36

Bail Appl..No. 1874 of 2019

¶37

petitioner is not necessary in this case as no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. That apart, there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

¶38

In the result, this application stands allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.252/2019 of Kannur Police Station 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

¶39

the satisfaction of the Station House

¶40

Bail Appl..No. 1874 of 2019

¶41

Officer of Kannur Police Station, before

¶42

whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶43

i) The petitioner shall report

¶44

before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶45

ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper

¶46

Bail Appl..No. 1874 of 2019

¶47

-6-

¶48

with the investigation.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR,

¶51

JUDGE

¶52

STK

Johnson Kappalumakkal, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnson Kappalumakkal, 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

Aneesh Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith.S.S Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Vs State of Kerala

Abraham J Thaliyath Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Chandy, Vs State of Kerala