Allowed

Sreekala v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6187/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application for a co-accused in a cheating and forgery case. Finding that major accusations were against the 1st accused and no evidence of tampering was shown, the Court held custodial interrogation not necessitous.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant to appear for interrogation; bail granted upon execution of bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties on specific conditions.

Sreekala Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 17TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6187 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.2316/2019 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

SREEKALA, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.PRABHAKARAN PILLAI, SAGARA, KAREEPRA, KUZHUMATHIKADU, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.N.P.PRADEEP SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

*** 2** ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED

¶14

ANURAJ A.R. S/O RETNAKARAN NAIR, AUTHORISED OFFICER, ICL FIN CORP LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, MUKALUVILA BUILDING, BUILDING NO.K.P.III-741, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691506.

¶15

ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 5/9/19 * IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA-6187/2019.

¶16

SRI. RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.6187 OF 2019

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.2316/2019 of the Kottarakkara Police Station registered under Sections 420, 465, 467 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The said Crime was registered on a complaint lodged by the Authorised Officer, ICL Fincorp., a Private Financial Institution, before the learned Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

From the complaint which was made available, the allegation is that the applicant herein had worked as the Branch Manager in the Kottarakkara Branch of ICL Fincorp Ltd., and the 1^st accused used to work as an independent agent and was a customer as well. It is alleged that the 1^st accused introduced numerous persons to the institution when it commenced its operation at Kottarakkara. The said persons pledged gold ornaments with the institution and availed gold loans. Later, without their knowledge, the 1^st accused forged documents and with the active aid of the applicant, paid the amounts due to the institution out of the gold loans and obtained the gold ornaments. Only when the customers approached the institution and demanded back the gold, did the

¶24

Bail Appl..No.6187 OF 2019

¶25

¶26

de facto complainant and others came to realise that the accused were acting hand in glove to cause wrongful loss to the institution.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent of all allegations. It is urged that the applicant had acted strictly in terms of the Rules and Regulations and she was duped by the 1^st accused. It is further submitted that the applicant is a lady with a good track record and it is prayed that she be spared from the rigours of custodial interrogation.

¶28

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has stoutly opposed the prayer.

¶29

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through complaint and also the case diary. It is clear from the complaint that the major accusations are against the 1^st accused. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, the allegation is that she had acted against the Rules and Regulations of the private financial institution. If she has done so, her acts would be clearly borne out from the records. Furthermore, the applicant is not working in the said concern. Therefore, there cannot be any apprehension that she would tamper with the materials. In the facts and circumstances, I do not think

¶30

Bail Appl..No.6187 OF 2019

¶31

¶32

that her custodial interrogation is necessitous for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶33

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 she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶35

ii) She 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.

¶36

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

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶38

SD/-

¶39

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶40

DSV/10.10.19

¶41

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Sreekala v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekala 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

Muhammed Sayeed.M.a Vs State of Kerala

Geeson Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu P.U. Vs State of Kerala

Shivaprasad Vs State of Kerala

Rafi.S.M. Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Indira Vs State of Kerala