Allowed

Sajitha Kumari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2020Bail Appl./2262/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed the bail application of two petitioners suspected of forgery. The court dispensed with immediate custodial interrogation, directed surrender, and granted bail subject to conditions including appearance, no tampering, and no further offences.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to petitioners 3 and 4; directed to surrender within two weeks and release on bail after interrogation.

Sajitha Kumari Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2262 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1992/2018 OF Sasthamcotta Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONERS/SUSPECTED ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SAJITHA KUMARI AGED 50 YEARS

¶9

W/O. UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, POOJA BHAVANAM, ARINALLOOR P.O. MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 538.

¶10

2 KANAKAMMAL, W/O. RAJAN ACHARI, RATHEESH BHAVANAM, EDAVANASSERY MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 519.

¶11

3 VIJAYAMMA, W/O. SIVADASAN, PRASAD BHAVANAM, MANAPPALLY P.O. CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 574.

¶12

4 SUCHITHRA, W/O. SUBHASH, VENGA P.O. MYNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 521.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶14

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI 31.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 2262/20

O R D E R

BA No.2262 of 2020 [Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2020]

¶24

This is a petition seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶25

There are four petitioners, who suspected that they are implicated as accused in Crime No.1992/2018 of Sasthamcotta Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, along with some other accused. The learned Public Prosecutor under instructions submits that petitioners 1 and 2 have not been implicated as accused and final report has already been filed with petitioners 3 and 4 herein as accused Nos.5 and 6. Hence, this Court is only concerned with their application for anticipatory bail.

¶26

The prosecution case in brief is thus:

¶27

The petitioners along with the first accused fabricated the seal of Kudumbasree Chairperson, named Chitralekha, on 9.8.2018 and applied for loan from Canara Bank,

¶28

BA 2262/20

¶29

¶30

Sastamcotta and attempted to get money from there. The petitioners state that they are innocent and that all the main documents have been seized by the investigating officer. Accused 1 to 4 had approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail and they have been granted bail by the Court. Under the circumstances, the petitioners pray that they may also be granted anticipatory bail.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, I find that custodial interrogation of petitioners 3 and 4 may not be necessary as the allegation is based entirely on documents which have already been seized. But, they have to be subjected to interrogation for which they are willing to co-operate with the investigation.

¶33

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed with respect to petitioners 3 and 4 and they are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation, in the event of

¶34

BA 2262/20

¶35

¶36

their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, on the following further conditions:

¶37

(i) They shall appear before the

¶38

investigating officer as and when called for and cooperate with the investigation.

¶39

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶40

(iii) They shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.

¶41

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

¶42

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶43

Sajitha Kumari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajitha Kumari 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

Sanil Kumar v. T. Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Nibin K.B. Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudheen Vs the State of Kerala

Kunhiraman K., Vs State of Kerala

Subhash Vasu Vs State of Kerala