Allowed

Sreejan v. Sagar, v the Station House Officer

Kerala HC19 Dec 2019Bail Appl./8729/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted limited anticipatory bail to the applicant for a one-month period to approach the jurisdictional court in Maharashtra. Expired bail is not ordered ahead of time. Arrest after the said period would invalidate the bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted for 1 month to approach jurisdictional court in Maharashtra. Bail valid only if arrest is made in Kerala.

Sreejan v Sagar, Vs the Station House Officer — 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

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.8729 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SREEJAN V SAGAR, AGED 49 YEARS

¶8

S/O VIDYA SAGAR, RESIDING AT KANDANATTU HOUSE, POOCHAKKAL PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 526, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S SHREE BALAJI CORPORATION, SALIMRAJAN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, KERALA AND PROPRIETOR, SRI.SABARIVASAN TRADING COMPANY (WRONGLY SHOWN AS SHRI SABRI NIWAS TRADING COMPANY), 38/2391D, A.V.GEORGE ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN-682 020.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MIDC POLICE STATION, MH SH 186, B- SECTOR, MIDC, JALGAON, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-425 003.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POOCHAKKAL POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 526.

¶14

3 SANJAY NEMI CHAND JAIN, 51, BUSINESS, 38 PRATAP NAGAR, RING ROAD, JALGAON, MAHARASHTRA-425 003.

¶15

4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682 031.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.RAJESHKUMAR

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI B JAYASURYA SR PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No.8729 OF 2019

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

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

¶24

The applicant has been arrayed as the 1^st accused in Crime No.642 of 2019 registered at the MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon, Maharashtra under Section 406, 409, 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶25

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant purchased pulses from the de facto complainant and he failed to pay the price for the same.

¶26

4. Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon, the learned counsel, contends that

¶27

the applicant is innocent. His limited prayer in this petition is to pass appropriate orders to enable the applicant to have a breathing time to appear before the jurisdictional court in the State of Maharashtra and obtain appropriate orders.

¶28

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the

¶29

statement forwarded to this Court by the Station House Officer, MIDC Police Station.

¶30

Bail Appl..No.8729 OF 2019

¶31

¶32

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.

¶33

In view of the limited prayer sought for by the applicant, I am of the view that a breathing time can be granted to the applicant to appear before the Jurisdictional court in the State of Maharashtra and seek appropriate orders.

¶34

In the event of the arrest of the applicant in connection with Crime No.642 of 2019 registered at the MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the same shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶35

a) The above order shall be valid only for a period of one month from today. Within the said period, the applicant shall seek appropriate orders from the court having jurisdiction in the State of Maharashtra.

¶36

b) The applicant shall report before the Station House Officer, Poochakkal Police Station as and when he is directed to do so.

¶37

c) The applicant shall not influence or intimidate any witness.

¶38

Bail Appl..No.8729 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

d) This order shall have effect only if the arrest is

¶41

made within the State of Kerala.

¶42

This application is disposed of.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Sreejan v. Sagar, v the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreejan v. Sagar, v the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pias, Vs the State of Kerala

P.v.Sajith Vs State of Kerala

Akhil N. Vs State of Kerala

O. N. Yesodharan Vs State of Kerala

Noorjahan, Vs State of Kerala

Sumitha @ Sumi, Vs State of Kerala