Allowed

Remani Chacko, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jun 2019Bail Appl./2574/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted anticipatory bail to two accused petitioners facing charges of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and directed release on bond with conditions to appear for interrogation and not tamper with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; direction enlarged on bail on bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties each, to report to IO as required, and not influence witnesses.

Remani Chacko, Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶3

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶4

Bail Appl..No.2574 of 2019

¶5

CRIME NO.105/2019 OF Vandanmedu Police Station , Idukki

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 REMANI CHACKO, AGED 56 YEARS KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, 6TH MILE, KUMALI, CHAKKUPALAM, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DIST., NOW RESIDING AT NO.45, KAVERI LAYOUT, MARIYANAPALAYA, DASARAHALLI, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 024.

¶8

2 SHAJI GEORGE, AGED 1 YEARS KOTTARATHIL HOUSE, 6TH MILE, KUMALI, CHAKKUPALAM, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.KURIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, VANDANMEDU, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2 K.S.CHACKO, KUNNATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADAKKANJERY KARE, ALATHOOR VILLAGE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 67851.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.V.SETHUNATH SRI.V.R.MANORANJAN (MUVATTUPUZHA)

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.2574 of 2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 105 of 2019 of Vandanmedu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶21

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the brother of the de facto complainant. It has been further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there exists various disputes between the de facto complainant and the petitioners.

¶24

The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has submitted that the property of the de facto complainant was given for lease by creating forged consent letter of

¶25

Bail Appl..No.2574 of 2019

¶26

-3-

¶27

the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant has further submitted that the consent letter is to be recovered from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no such consent letter as alleged by the de facto complainant. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant could not state as to whom the said consent letter was given by the petitioners. It is alleged in the complaint that a forged consent letter was created by the petitioners. If the petitioners had given any forged consent letter to any person, the same can be recovered from that person. No copy of any such consent letter was also produced by the de facto complainant.

¶28

Having gone through the relevant inputs, it appears that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the relationship between the parties, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶29

Bail Appl..No.2574 of 2019 -4-

¶30

In the result, this application stands allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with the above said crime, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶31

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

¶32

(ii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶33

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2019.

¶34

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge

Remani Chacko, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remani 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

Sijo Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Vinodkumar v., Vs State of Kerala

N.P.Thomas Vs Station House Officer

Faisan, Vs State of Kerala