In this bail application under Section 438 CrPC for offences under IPC sections 420, 468, and 406, the High Court held that the case was not fit for granting anticipatory bail as records evidenced money flow and forgery, dismissing the prayer.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; applicant directed to cooperate with investigation.
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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.5901 OF 2019
CRIME NO.1308/2019 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
JOSEPH.P.J., AGED 31 YEARS S/O. P.J. JOSEPH, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O, PANAMATTAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 29/8/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019 IN BA-5901/2019.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.5901 OF 2019
..2..
ORDER
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR, being Crime No.1308 of 2019, registered with the Ponkunnam Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 468 & 420 of the IPC.
Bail Appl..No.5901 OF 2019
..3..
..4..
Bail Appl..No.5901 OF 2019
evidence the complicity of the applicant. As to why the applicant, who claims to be a salesman, left the country of Kuwait also will have to be probed. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the view that this is not a fit case warranting exercise of powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
In the result, while dismissing the application, I direct the applicant to appear before the investigating officer forthwith and cooperate with the investigation. After interrogation, the applicant shall be produced before the Court having jurisdiction. If an application for regular bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and order shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits.
This petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,
JUDGE
Bka/16.10.2019
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the allegations of fraud and forgery against the applicant are frivolous and fictitious warranting anticipatory bail?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Joseph.P.J.
The State of Kerala
G.Sreenivasan
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
