Allowed

Saila Kumari.G.K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2019Bail Appl./2000/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed bail to an accused charged with forgery and cheating. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was granted subject to cooperation with investigation and specific undertakings to not influence witnesses. A bond of Rs. 40,000 and two sureties were required.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted upon execution of bond for Rs. 40,000 with two sureties of equal amount, subject to conditions of cooperation and conduct.

Saila Kumari.G.K 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2000 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.37/2018 OF VITHURA POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SAILA KUMARI.G.K AGED 56 YEARS W/O.M S CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT GOPIURTHE VILAS, PACHA, PULARVALLY.P.O., THIRUVANANTRHAPURAM-695562.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VITHURA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.2000 of 2019

¶17

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

========================= B.A. No.2000 of 2019

¶20

========================= Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2019

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner has been arrayed as the sole accused in Crime No.37/2018 of Vidura Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 463, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is that the above said crime has been registered as per the complaint given by a former employee of the Chayam Co-operative Bank alleging that the petitioner/ accused, who is the Secretary of the said Co-operative Bank has manipulated and forged certain records and misappropriated huge amount during the period from 2010-2012, etc.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has rendered commendable service as the Secretary of the Co-operative Bank and that the said Co-operative Bank is full functioning within the rigorous discipline and regulatory control of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and that in terms of the mandate of the said Act and Rule, annual statutory audits have been conducted and no

¶25

Bail Appl..No.2000 of 2019

¶26

¶27

irregularities have been detected till date. It is further submitted that the complainant was earlier working on commission basis in the said Bank and that he thought that his grade promotion was badly affected because the petitioner, who is the supervisory officer, had not taken into account the engagement of the defacto complainant on commission basis from 1980 onwards and later his induction on a consolidated pay. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant was also a member of the co-operative society and an office order was issued that the serving employees of the Bank should terminate their membership of the society and this also had given rise to animosity in the mind of the complainant, etc.

¶28

The petitioner has asserted that the departmental audit and statutory audit has been carried out in the said co-operative Bank in terms of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Rules framed thereunder and that such auditory process has not disclosed any such allegations or irregularities as referred by the complainant. In the light of these aspects that the crime has been registered on the basis of a First Information Statement given by the informant, who was a former employee of the Bank, on 12.01.2018 and that was in respect of alleged incidents happened for the periods 2010-2012.

¶29

Taking note of the above said aspect, this court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

¶30

Bail Appl..No.2000 of 2019

¶31

¶32

not necessary. However, the petitioner is bound to fully co-operate with interrogation process. Accordingly, the following directions are

¶33

issued:-

¶34

(i) The petitioner will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer concerned at 10:00 am in any day or before 29.06.2019 for interrogation purpose.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the interrogation process.

¶36

(iii) After the interrogation process if the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioner in connection with the above said crime, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶37

Further it is also ordered that it will be subject to following conditions:-

¶38

(a) The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶39

(b) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶40

(c) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶41

(d) The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶42

Bail Appl..No.2000 of 2019

¶43

¶44

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court concerned will stand hereby empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if required, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶45

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶48

Skk//150619

Saila Kumari.G.K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saila Kumari.G.K 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

Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shafi Vs Jamsheena

Midhun Raj, Vs the State of Kerala

Shameer B.L. Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Jinachandran Vs Parakkal Pushpa

Jose Vs State of Kerala