Allowed

Ajith George, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2019Bail Appl./2271/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by an accused facing charges of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Finding no criminal antecedents and noting that bank records were available, the court granted pre-arrest bail with conditions including surrender within ten days, regular reporting to the investigating officer, and no tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 35,000 with two sureties, surrendering within ten days, and reporting to the Investigating Officer weekly.

Ajith George, Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2271 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 302/2019 OF Ettumanoor Police Station , Kottayam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

AJITH GEORGE, AGED 32 YEARS

¶9

S/O.GEORGE, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAT CORPORATES PVT.LTD., OPP.K.S.R.T.C BUS STAND, ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.(REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT).

¶13

2 ROJIN THOMAS S/O SHAJI MATHEW AGED 25 YEARS ADATTU HOUSE MURIKKUPUZHA BHAGOM,PALA KOTTAYAM-686575

¶14

- IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 08-04-219 IN CRLMANO-01/2019.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 2271 of 2019

¶19

-2-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is the accused in Crime

¶22

No.302/2019 of Ettumanoor Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

¶23

2. The prosecution allegation is

¶24

that the petitioner collected a total amount of Rs.3.00 lakh from the defacto complainant promising that the petitioner would arrange

¶25

a job visa to the defacto complainant for working abroad. However, the job visa as promised was not arranged. The money

¶26

collected was also not returned.

¶27

3. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶28

4. Service on the additional second

¶29

respondent is complete. However, there is

¶30

no appearance for the additional second

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 2271 of 2019

¶32

-3-

¶33

respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It appears that the money was transferred through the bank. Therefore, the record relating to the transaction is available with the bank. It appears that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. That apart, there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶35

In the result, this application stands allowed and the first respondent is directed

¶36

Bail Appl..No. 2271 of 2019

¶37

to release the petitioner on bail in the

¶38

event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.302/2019 of Ettumanoor Police Station on

¶39

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

¶40

i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for two months and

¶41

thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for

¶42

Bail Appl..No. 2271 of 2019

¶43

-5-

¶44

interrogation.

¶45

ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the

¶46

witnesses or in any way tamper

¶47

with the investigation.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶50

STK

¶51

//TRUE COPY//

¶52

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Ajith George, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith George, 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

Pratheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

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

Abdul Rasack, Vs the Station Hose Officer

Ummer a.K, Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Nishana Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Saban.K.v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police