Allowed

Hilda Sandra Duram, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2020Bail Appl./3891/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to a pregnant woman accused of cheating under Section 420 IPC. Conditions included passport surrender, non-interference with witnesses, and a bond of Rs.1 lakh. The application was allowed despite opposing counsel's arguments.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender of passport, execution of Rs.1 lakh bond with two sureties, non-interference with witnesses, and surrender within two weeks.

Hilda Sandra Duram, 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

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3891 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 567/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.117/2020 OF Chittar Police Station , Pathanamthitta

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

HILDA SANDRA DURAM, AGED 28 YEARS D/O. EMERSON, DURAM, AMBATTU HOUSE, KANACHANTHODU ROAD, PACHALAM, KOCHI 682 012.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.FAISAL

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHITTAR POLICE STANCHION, PATHANAMTHITTA , REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031. 682031

¶13

2 ADDL.R2 BINOY THOMAS AGED 41 YEARS S/O THOMAS, VAZHAPILLATH HOUSE, KOTTAMANPARA.P.O, SEETHATHODU, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT PIN-691506 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 14.7.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.3891 OF 2020

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Dated this the 17th day of August 2020

¶21

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶22

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.117/2020 of Chittar Police Station, Pathanamthitta for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- to her, for offering a job visa to the applicant and cheated her. No job as promised was allegedly arranged and she was also not returned the amount which was paid by her. The applicant had approached the Sessions Court, Ernakulam for anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is a 26 year old pregnant lady with no other antecedents. She is willing to cooperate with the investigation and that she is innocent and therefore she may be granted a pre arrest bail.

¶25

Bail Appl..No.3891 OF 2020

¶26

4.The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant has vehemently opposed the application for bail and has stated that there is sufficient material to show that the applicant herself had received the amount for arranging a job visa to Australia and had cheated the de facto complainant.

¶27

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the antecedents of the applicant and the fact that she is a pregnant lady as evidenced by Annexure A2 produced by the applicant, I am inclined to grant a pre-arrest bail to the applicant on stringent conditions.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of her being arrested, she shall be released on bail on 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 following conditions:

¶29

(i) She shall surrender her passport before the investigating officer and the same shall be produced before the jurisdictional court. She shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional court.

¶30

Bail Appl..No.3891 OF 2020

¶31

(ii) She shall not attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper

¶32

with evidence and,

¶33

(iii) She shall not get involved in any other similar crimes during

¶34

the currency of the bail.

¶35

In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty

¶36

to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Hilda Sandra Duram, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hilda Sandra Duram, 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

Sini Manjesh, Vs State of Kerala

Sini Manjesh Vs State of Kerala

Shanavas Vs Public Prosecutor

Nidhnin Vs State of Kerala

Ansab Vs Public Prosecutor

Nithin Aloysious Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala