Allowed

Madan Mohan v. the Inspector of Police

Kerala HC26 Aug 2019Bail Appl./5271/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed by three accused in a cheating case involving loan fraud and vehicle registration irregularities, imposing monetary bonds and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with bond of Rs.40,000 each subject to conditions of reporting, not tampering with investigation, and avoiding other offences.

Madan Mohan Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | 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 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 4TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5271 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1212/2019 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 3:

¶8

1 MADAN MOHAN

¶9

AGED 64 YEARS S/O.GANGADHARAN PILLAI, VADAKEMADATHIL HOUSE, VILLA NO.3, STADIUM PARK, NAGPAL BUILDERS, STADIUM LINK ROAD, KALOOR.P.O., KOCHI-682017

¶10

2 LATHA MOHAN AGED 58 YEARS

¶11

W/O.MADAN MOHAN, VADAKEMADATHIL HOUSE, VILLA NO.3, STADIUM PARK, NAGPAL BUILDERS, STADIUM LINK ROAD, KALOOR.P.O., KOCHI -682017

¶12

3 VINOD MOHAN AGED 30 YEARS

¶13

S/O.MADAN MOHAN VADAKEMADATHIL HOUSE, VILLA NO.3, STADIUM PARK, NAGPAL BUILDERS, STADIUM LINK ROAD, KALOOR.P.O., KOCHI-682017

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SMT.K.A.ANGEL TREENA

¶16

SMT.ARLISS TRENCY ANTONY

¶17

RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶18

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM682018

¶19

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM-682 018

¶20

Bail Appl..No.5271 OF 2019

¶21

-2-

¶22

3 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031

¶23

4 ADDL. R4 M/S. MUTHOOT VEHICLE AND ASSET FINANCE LTD., IMPLEADED MUTHOOT CHAMBERS, KURIAN TOWER, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM-682018. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF MANAGER. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 5-08-2019 IN CRL.MA 1/2019 IN BA 5271/2019

¶24

R4 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶27

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

Bail Appl..No.5271 OF 2019

¶29

-3-

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.1212/2019

¶32

of Ernakulam Central Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 415 and 420 r/w 34 IPC.

¶33

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:- The 1^st petitioner availed a loan of Rs. 82,54,150/from the informant for the purpose of purchasing a Range Rover car. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were the sureties. The car was purchased utilizing the loan. However, instead of registering the same in Kerala, the 1^st petitioner got the vehicle registered in Pondicherry by producing false address.

¶34

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

¶35

Heard.

¶36

Bail Appl..No.5271 OF 2019

¶37

-4-

¶38

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent has

¶39

opposed the application stating that forged documents were produced for the purpose of registering the vehicle in pondicherry. There is no allegation that the vehicle was not purchased utilizing the amount availed from the 4^th respondent. The only allegation is that the vehicle was not registered in Kerala as agreed by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners registered the vehicle in Pondicherry only after getting permission from the informant who is the 4^th respondent herein. The 1^st petitioner is aged 64 years. The documents produced by the petitioners for the registration of the vehicle at Pondicherry are already available with the authorities concerned. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for the progress of the investigation of the case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegations, I am inclined to

¶40

Bail Appl..No.5271 OF 2019

¶41

-5-

¶42

grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶43

In the result, this application stands allowed and respondent Nos 1 to 3 are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in the above said crime, on condition of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the 1^st respondent, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

Bail Appl..No.5271 OF 2019

¶47

-6-

¶48

(iii) The petitioners shall not get involved in

¶49

any other offence during the pendency of this

¶50

case.

¶51

SD/-

¶52

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

Madan Mohan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Mohan v. the Inspector of Police

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

Vachaprath Fayaz, Vs State of Kerala

Roy @ Compan Roy Vs State of Kerarla

Jayakumar C.L @ Jiji Vs S.I of Police

Muneer Vs the State of Kerala

Pranav, Vs State of Kerala

Biju Thomas Vs the State of Kerala