Allowed

Rajesh M.V v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2020Bail Appl./3443/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed anticipatory bail to accused facing charges of cheating and misappropriation in a cooperative society. Directed surrender within two weeks and imposed bond conditions to ensure availability and non-interference with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within two weeks and execution of bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- each with sureties.

Rajesh M.V Vs the State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3443 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.87/2020 OF Vazhikadavu Police Station , Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:

¶8

1 RAJESH M.V., AGED 40 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN, MADATHODI HOUSE, MUNDAPOTTY, MARUTHA P O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SUNILKUMAR P., AGED 47 YEARS, S/O DAMODHARAN NAIR, PALLATH HOUSE, KARAKKAD P O, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS /STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VAZHIKKADAVU POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679333.

¶14

3 ADDL.R3 MOIDEENKUTTY, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O MAMMI,KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PARALUNDA, MARUTHA, VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679333 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 1/2020

¶15

R1–2 SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.B.GAFOOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.3443 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of August 2020

¶20

Application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.

¶21

The applicants are accused in Crime No. 87/2020 of Vazhikkadavu Police station, Malappuram for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶22

The prosecution case in brief is that, the applicants, had in their capacity as the Secretary and President of the Vazhikkadavu Agricultural Improvement Co-operative Society, deceived the defacto complainant by dishonestly inducing him to renew his loan of Rs.1,40,000/- and made him sign several papers and thus misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,00,000/purportedly taken as loan in the name of the defacto complainant, and cheated him in furtherance of common intention. The defacto complainant has appeared through counsel.

¶23

The applicants state that they have no criminal antecedents. They are willing to co-operate with the investigation. The entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence which can be seized or be produced for

¶24

¶25

Bail Appl..No.3443 OF 2020

¶26

which they are willing to co-operate. There is no possibility of their absconding and therefore they may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the defacto complainant, and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The entire prosecution case is based on documentary evidence pertaining to the functioning of the Co-operative Society of which the applicants are Secretary and President respectively. They are willing to co-operate with the investigation. The accusation against them is that using the name of the defacto complainant and making him sign certain papers, under the guise, that his earlier loan of Rs.1,40,000/- is being renewed, they allegedly used the papers to issue a fresh loan to him, and misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶29

All these matters could be proved with the help of documentary evidence. Therefore, custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary particularly in these pandemic times.

¶30

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicants are hereby directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks, and after interrogation

¶31

¶32

Bail Appl..No.3443 OF 2020

¶33

in the event of their being arrested , they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, on the following conditions:-

¶34

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶35

(ii) They shall not interfere with the investigation, intimidate or influence witnesses.

¶36

(iii) They shall surrender their passports before the

¶37

Investigating Officer and if they do not have one, file an affidavit to that effect which shall be produced before the jurisdictional court.

¶38

(iv) They shall not get involved in any similar crime during the bail period.

¶39

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional Court.

¶40

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶41

SSK/03/08

Rajesh M.V v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh M.V v. the 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

Shanu Shajilal Vs State of Kerala

Salamu Vs State of Kerala

Sumesh Vs State of Kerala

Prejith Kumar. P.K Vs State of Kerala

Anoop Vs State of Kerala

Ashok Kumar R.S., Vs State of Kerala