Allowed

Anoop M.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4025/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Court granted pre-arrest bail on stringent conditions, directing surrender within two weeks and appearance for investigation, citing pandemic constraints and absence of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail conditioned to surrender within two weeks, appear before investigating officer on Mondays for two months, execute bond with sureties, and maintain regular cooperation.

Anoop M.R. 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

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4025 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1541/2019 OF Hill Palace Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANOOP M.R. AGED 40 YEARS S/O. RAMAN KUNJU, MADAVAPPILLIL HOUSE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685553. 685553

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB RAJEE P MATHEWS SMT.AMRUTHA K P SMT.AMRUTHA P S

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 PRAMOD C AGED 39 YEARS S/O CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, SARASWATHY VILASOM THPOTTAKAM P.O. VAIKOM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 13/7/2020 IN CRL. MA 1/2020

¶13

R2 BY ADV. S.SHANAVAS KHAN R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.INDU

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.AMJAD ALI SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.4025 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Dated this the 6th day of August 2020

¶21

This is an application filed under Section 438 of

¶22

Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶23

The applicant is the first accused in Crime No.1541/2019 of Hill Palace Police Station, for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections

¶24

406, 420 and 468 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶25

The prosecution case in brief is thus. The

¶26

applicant in furtherance of the common intention with

¶27

the second accused, who is the Manger of the South

¶28

Indian Bank, Thripunithura to cheat the defacto complainant and his company, forged a false resolution authorising the first applicant to act on behalf of

¶29

his company and withdrew a sum of Rs.13,99,000/-

¶30

between 1.2.2019 to 13.5.2019 with the assistance of

¶31

the second applicant, the Bank Manager and thereby committed the offence.

¶32

Bail Appl..No.4025 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

The applicant states that on 11.10.2017, the

¶35

company had passed the resolution authorising the

¶36

applicant to operate the bank account opened by the

¶37

company in the South Indian Bank, Thripunithura and the

¶38

true copy of the resolution signed by the Director

¶39

Board members is also produced as Annexure-1. The applicant claims as the Managing Director of the company named E-Trans Global (Private) Ltd. The

¶40

applicant states that he has no criminal antecedents. He is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. He is not going to abscond and he need

¶41

not be subjected to any custodial interrogation for the purpose of the investigation.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶43

applicant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶44

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted

¶45

that the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C has already

¶46

been issued to the applicant to appear and co-operate

¶47

with the investigation. But he has not appear so far. Hence, directions may be issued to him to appear before

¶48

the investigating officer for the purpose of the

¶49

Bail Appl..No.4025 OF 2020

¶50

¶51

investigation.

¶52

7.Considering the present pandemic situation and the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)

¶53

9400/2020, I am not inclined to let the applicant be incarcerated for the purpose of investigation as long as he is willing to co-operate with the investigation. He has also no criminal antecedents and there is no possibility of his absconding. Under such

¶54

circumstances, the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail on stringent conditions.

¶55

In the result, this application is allowed.

¶56

Hence, the petitioner shall surrender before the

¶57

investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of his being arrested, he

¶58

shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent

¶59

sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following further conditions;

¶60

i. He shall not tamper with evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶61

Bail Appl..No.4025 OF 2020

¶62

ii. He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two months or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶63

iii. He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.

¶64

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for

¶65

cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶66

The petition is disposed of as above.

¶67

ASHOK MENON

¶68

JUDGE

¶69

Al/-

Anoop M.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop M.R. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vipin Kumar Vs Public Prosecutor

Ullas Sebastian Vs State Ofkerala

Midhun Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Fahad Vs State of Kerala

Visakh, Vs State of Kerala

Prince @ Hari Vs State of Kerala