Allowed

James.B @ Jose, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2019Bail Appl./5666/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding alleged misappropriation and forgery, the High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the accused, noting the lack of need for custodial interrogation and the absence of criminal record.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on execution of bond for Rs.40,000/- with two solvent sureties and reporting conditions.

James.B @ Jose, Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 29TH BHADRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5666 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2084/2019 DATED 30-07-2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED:

¶8

JAMES.B @ JOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. BENJAMIN, VALAYINCHIYIL HOUSE, KOOTICKAL VILLAGE, YENDAYAR P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, (SHO,MUNDAKKAYAM, POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 031

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 C.M.SEBASTIAN, AGED 60 YEARS,S/O MATHEW, CHAMAKALAYIL PO, YENDAYAR PO, KOOTICKAL, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, PIN-686514.

¶13

**(*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/08/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.01/2019.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN SRI.SANTHOSH PETER,PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.5666 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1021 of 2019 of Mundakkayam Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 420,

¶20

468, 471 and 477 A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The petitioner has filed this application under

¶22

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, while functioning as the president of Rubber Producers Society, Yendayar, committed misappropriation of an amount of Rs.13,97,578/during the period from 2004 to 2017 by creating

¶25

¶26

Bail Appl..No.5666 OF 2019

¶27

forged and false documents. It appears that on the said allegations, a complaint was filed by the second respondent herein before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Accordingly, the crime was registered. It is alleged that even though the second respondent had lodged information to the police with regard to the commission of the above offence, no action was taken by the police. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was only because of the rift between two political groups that the above complaint was lodged. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the second respondent that all the documents pertaining to the forgery are available with

¶28

¶29

Bail Appl..No.5666 OF 2019

¶30

the society. It has been further submitted by the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the copy of most of the forged documents had been produced by the second respondent along with the complaint. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the audit conducted did not reveal that the petitioner had committed any forgery. The learned Counsel for the second respondent on the other hand has submitted that all the documents were not produced by the petitioner for the purpose of conducting the audit and hence subsequent audit was conducted. In the said audit, it was revealed that there was forgery and misappropriation. It appears that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner

¶31

¶32

Bail Appl..No.5666 OF 2019

¶33

is not necessary in this case. That apart, the petitioner

¶34

has no criminal antecedent. In the said circumstances,

¶35

I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶36

In the result, this 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.40,000/- (Rupees Forty 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

¶38

Bail Appl..No.5666 OF 2019

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall report before the

¶40

Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months

¶41

and thereafter, as and when required by the

¶42

Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶43

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

¶44

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence of similar nature during the pendency of this case.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

RK/20.09.19

James.B @ Jose, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James.B @ Jose, 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

Akhil Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Mothi @ Amal Farook Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash S., Vs State of Kerala

Shaji @ Thokku Shaji, Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Vs State of Kerala

Tonny Joseph Vs State of Kerala