Dismissed

Jayaraj, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020Bail Appl./4140/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala addressed an anticipatory bail application by two accused accused of cheating a bank by pledging fake gold bangles. The court dismissed the plea, noting the applicants had criminal antecedents from three other similar cases and required interrogation by the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; accused not entitled to release.

Jayaraj, 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 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4140 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.185/2020 OF VARANDARAPPALLY POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO 1 AND 2:

¶8

1 JAYARAJ, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O SUBRAMANIAN, KIZHAKKOODAN HOUSE, VEPPUR DESAM, VARANTHARAPPILLY, AMBALLUR, MUKUNDHAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN-680303.

¶9

2 RANJITH, S/O ARAVINDHAKSHAN, CHERUMADATHIL HOUSE, THEKKUMURI DESAM, VARANTHARAPPILLY, AMBALLUR, MUKUNDHAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SHRI.VENUGOPALAN MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR RURAL.

¶14

3 ADDL.R3 FEDERAL BANK, MANNAMPETTA BRANCH, AMBALLOOR, THRISSUR-680302, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE PRESIDENT, MRS.ROOBY JHON. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 7/8/2020 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2020 IN BA-4140/2020

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.D.JOSEPH

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – SR.PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

B.A.No.4140 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Dated this the 17th day of September, 2020

¶23

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶24

The applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.185 of 2020 of Varandarappally Police Station, Thrissur, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶25

On 30.11.2019, at about 12.30 AM, the 1^st accused,

¶26

who is holding an account with the bank, approached the Federal

¶27

Bank and sought to pledge 14 gold bangles weighing 140.35 grams and borrowed a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- as gold loan and thereafter, it was found that the gold bangles which were pledged with the bank were all fake and that the gold appraiser could not detect it immediately, because the coating on the bangles was too thick and subsequent, detailed testing revealed that the bangles were all spurious gold. The applicants state that they

¶28

B.A.No.4140 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

are innocent and the allegations are false and that they are willing to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, they may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the 1^st accused was already arrested in connection with some other crime and is in judicial custody, but he could not be questioned because of the present pandemic situation. The 2^nd accused has not been arrested so far. It is also submitted that the accused have criminal antecedents. They are involved in three other similar crimes apart from a case under the Abkari Act. And, therefore, it is prayed that they may not be granted anticipatory bail.

¶32

After having heard both sides, I find that the applicants have been pledging spurious gold and taking loans from banks and similar mode of cheating was adopted by the applicants in several cases and not less than three other cases have been registered against them. Under the circumstances, they will have

¶33

B.A.No.4140 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

to be interrogated by the Investigating Officer. This is not, therefore, a fit case, in which the applicants are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶36

In the result, the application for anticipatory bail is

dismissed.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

NR/17/09/20

Jayaraj, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaraj, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reena Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Junaid Vs State of Kerala

Reena Vs State of Kerala

Alice Antony Vs State of Kerala

Jifsal C B Vs Union of India

Mohammed Anwar T M Vs Union of India