Allowed

Pushpa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Sept 2020Bail Appl./3844/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to a 59-year-old accused facing charges under IPC Sections 406 and 420 for allegedly misappropriating funds. The court permitted bail due to the applicant's willingness to cooperate and the low risk of absconding, directing surrender within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks; released on bail with two sureties upon arrest after interrogation.

Pushpa Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 20TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3844 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1043/2020 DATED 27-05-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.747/2019 OF Varappuzha Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

PUSHPA AGED 59 YEARS W/O.PURUSHAN, PALLATH HOUSE, OLANAD .P.O ALANGAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-679335 PIN-679335

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.FAISAL

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031 682031 2 ADDL. R2. BABY JOSEPH AGED 70 YEARS W/O JOSEPH, MUPRAPARAMBIL HOUSE, OLANAD, VARAPUZHA,ALANGAD, PIN-679335

¶13

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 14/7/2020 IN CRL MA 1/2020

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

R2 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI K.CHERIAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.LAISA B.JOSE

¶16

SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No. 3844 of 2020

ASHOK MENON, J.

B.A.No. 3844 of 2020

Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2020

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL FILED UNDER SECTION 438

¶25

OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE

¶26

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.747/2019 of Varapuzha Police Station, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶27

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the de facto complainant and the applicant knew each other for the last 35 years. Believing the applicant, the defacto complainant was allegedly dishonestly induced to deliver a sum of Rs.18,50,000/(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) to the applicant for the purpose of finding a treasure trove with the help of an advocate. The amount was misappropriated. The applicant says

¶28

B.A.No. 3844 of 2020

¶29

¶30

that, the allegation is not true, she has only borrowed some amounts from the defacto complainant in connection with her daughter’s wedding, and that she is also willing to return those amounts in accordance with her capabilities to return the same.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The defacto complainant was heard through counsel and detailed objections filed by him perused. The defacto complainant has taken a different stand stating that she was exhorted to give money to the applicant on various occasions. As she could not reveal the facts to her son and daughter, there was some delay in lodging a complaint. It is stated that, in case the applicant is released on bail, there is a every possibility of her absconding and not co-operating with the investigation.

¶33

The applicant is a 59 year old lady. The 2^nd accused was

¶34

B.A.No. 3844 of 2020

¶35

¶36

already released on anticipatory bail by this Court. However, the application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant was rejected by the Sessions Court. The applicant states that she is willing to co-operate with the investigation. The applicant and the defacto complainant were known to each other for the last 35 years and had a very close relationship. The defacto complainant does not have a constant case regarding why the money was handed over to the applicant.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submits that the de facto complainant is a 70-year-old lady, and therefore, she has been altering her versions about the incident. The fact remains that the defacto complainant did hand over some money to the applicant and that the applicant owes that amount to the defacto complainant.

¶38

Under these circumstances, I find that the custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. She is willing

¶39

B.A.No. 3844 of 2020

¶40

¶41

to co-operate with the investigation and there is no possibility that she may abscond. Considering and the present pandemic situation, I find that incarceration of the applicant need not be necessary.

¶42

In the result, the bail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. After interrogation and recovery, in any, in the event of her being arrested, she shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on the following further conditions:

¶43

(i) She shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all alternate Mondays between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for a period of three months or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶44

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

¶45

B.A.No. 3844 of 2020

¶46

¶47

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

¶48

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.

¶49

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶50

VPK

Pushpa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa 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

Pratheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pratheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pratheesh Kumar K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Kalesh.a.v Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala