The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition for anticipatory bail. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to recover misappropriated funds and documents, making it an unfit case for anticipatory bail.
Application dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender before IO within ten days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.5591 OF 2019
CRIME NO.742/2019 OF Payyannur Police Station , Kannur
PETITIONER/S:
RACHANA.K.V. AGED 33 YEARS W/O. RAGUNATH P, PILAPALLI HOUSE, KANDANKALI, PAYYANNUR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, 670 307
BY ADV. SRI.M.BAIJU NOEL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGHER COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, STATION, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SMT V. SREEJA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Case No. BA 5591/19
-2-
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.742 of
2019 of Payyannur Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 409 and
420 IPC.
Case No. BA 5591/19
-3-
of the application forms with the specimen signatures of the customers, from the Society. The petitioner committed forgery in the bill books and other records for the purpose of committing misappropriation.
the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
the petitioner had remitted an amount of nearly Rs.6,00,000/- prior
to the registration of the crime. It appears that the documents, including the bill books have to be recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the progress of the investigation of the case. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where an
order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be
Case No. BA 5591/19
-4-
justified.
In the result, this application stands dismissed.
However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before
the Investigating Officer within ten days, if not arrested in
the meantime.
sd
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .
dl/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. considering the necessity of custodial interrogation for recovery of documents and recovery of misappropriated amount.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rachana.K.V.
State of Kerala
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
