Allowed

Jose Chacko v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2019Bail Appl./2537/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. observing that the dispute is predominantly civil and the petitioner has no antecedents. Bail was granted on bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and non-interference with investigation.

Jose Chacko Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | 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 01ST DAY OF JULY 2019 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2537 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 424/2019 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THRISSUR DATED 26-03-2019

¶7

CRIME NO.71/2019 OF Cherpu Police Station, Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONER/:

¶9

JOSE CHACKO AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, REISIDING AT ARIMBOOR CHEEROTH HOUSE, MOOSEPETTU ROAD, CHELAKKOTTUKARA, THRISSUR-5.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.A.P.LALY @ LALY VINCENT

¶11

RESPONDENTS/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHERPU POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

ADDL. K.K. DEEPANANDAN R2 AGED 64 YEARS, S/O K.R. KUMARAN, KOLAKATTIL HOUSE, PALAKKAL P.O, PALISERRY, THRISSUR.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.6.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019. BY ADVS. SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SHRI.AMAL DEV C.V. SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SRI.KDEAGO JOHN K SRI.R.MAHESH MENON

¶15

SMT.V.SREEJA,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

-2-

¶18

Bail Appl..No.2537 of 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the accused in Crime

¶21

No.71/2019 of Cherpu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 409 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

¶23

The second accused made the defacto complainant to believe that he was having 1000 shares of Canara bank and the said shares would be transferred to the name of the defacto complainant through M/s. Vertex Securities Ltd., which was stated to be an institution run by the first accused. Accordingly, the defacto complainant deposited Rs.1,97,500/- (Rupees one lakh ninety seven

¶24

-3-

¶25

Bail Appl..No.2537 of 2019

¶26

thousand and five hundred only) for 197 shares through the account of the second accused in two instalments. However, the shares as promised were

¶27

not given. The money was also not returned.

¶28

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

¶29

Heard.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶31

that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It appears that the documents relating to the transaction involved in this case are available with the

¶32

bank. Having gone through the relevant inputs, it appears that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. That apart, it appears that the dispute involved in this case is pre-

¶33

-4-

¶34

Bail Appl..No.2537 of 2019

¶35

dominantly civil in nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioner is a first time offender, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶36

In the result, this bail application stands allowed and the first respondent is 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.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶37

The petitioner shall report before the

¶38

-5-

¶39

Bail Appl..No.2537 of 2019

¶40

Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 am and 11.00 am for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

Needless to state that I have not made any observation with regard to the merits of the case and

¶44

the observation, if any, made in this order was only

¶45

for the purpose of disposing of this bail application.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶48

JUDGE

¶49

Nkr/01.07.19

Jose Chacko v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Chacko 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

Shefin, Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor

Narayanan Vs the Excise Range Officer

Sainudheen Vs State of Kerala

Reena Johnson Vs the State of Kerala

Nasiyath Vachaprath, Vs State of Kerala

Vachaprath Sabira, Vs State of Kerala