Allowed

George Daniel v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2019Bail Appl./5955/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to George Daniel, sole accused in a forgery case arising from a property dispute. The court decided custodial interrogation was unnecessary but imposed conditions including weekly appearances and prohibition on tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; appearance weekly.

George Daniel Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 18TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5955 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1495/2019 OF PUNALUR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

GEORGE DANIEL, AGED 49 YEARS, CHARUVILA PUTHENVEEDU,PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 C.K.NINAN, S/O C.O.KURIAN, RESIDING AT CHARUVELI HOUSE, PUNALUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK-689695.

¶13

ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/08/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA-5955/2019.

¶14

SRI. RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.5955 OF 2019

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The applicant herein is the sole accused in Crime No.1495 of 2019

¶21

of the Punaloor Police Station registered under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The aforesaid Crime was registered based on a complaint lodged by the additional 2^nd respondent before the learned Magistrate. It appears that the applicant herein is the brother-in-law of the de facto complainant. He was conducting an automobile spare parts shop in a shop owned by the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant entertained the need to commence a ready made business, he approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction

¶23

on various grounds. Eviction was ordered by the Rent Control Court and the said order was confirmed in appeal. However, in the Rent Control Revision filed against the orders of the court below, this Court remanded the matter back to the learned Munsiff for consideration of application of the first proviso to Section 11(3) of the Act. It is submitted across the bar that the Rent Control Court proceeded to dismiss the application seeking eviction and appeal has been preferred against the same. After the dismissal of the eviction petition, a

¶24

Bail Appl..No.5955 OF 2019

¶25

¶26

complaint was lodged before the learned Magistrate alleging that sometime in the year 2001, the applicant had applied for electric connection forging the signature of the de facto complainant. It is also alleged that rent deed was forged by the applicant and the same was produced before the Commercial Tax Authorities for issuance of TIN number. Various other allegations are also levelled.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the criminal law was set in motion after dismissal of the Rent Control Petition. According to the learned counsel, the allegations are frivolous and raised with intent to harass the applicant.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.

¶29

The informant has entered appearance through counsel. It is submitted that the applicant herein being a near relative, managed to fabricate records and this fact came to the knowledge of the 2^nd respondent only when he obtained copies of documents from the statutory authorities. It is submitted that the allegations are grave.

¶30

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the order passed by this Court in RCR No.138 of 2015 and Annexure-B complaint lodged by the informant. In the nature of allegations levelled against the applicant, I do not think that his custodial interrogation is necessary for the

¶31

Bail Appl..No.5955 OF 2019

¶32

¶33

purpose of investigation in the instant case.

¶34

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be

¶35

subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶37

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶38

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶39

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court

¶40

shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶43

IAP

George Daniel v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Daniel 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sreekala Vs State of Kerala

Shivaprasad Vs State of Kerala

Rafi.S.M. Vs State of Kerala

Biju C Raju, Vs the State of Kerala

Nanda Gopal Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Farooq.C.a., Vs State of Kerala