Allowed

Ullas Sebastian v. State Ofkerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4183/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to eight accused charged with cheating and forgery regarding forged tax receipts used to secure bank loans. The court noted the maximum sentence is seven years, documents are with the bank, and there is no risk of absconding.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to surrender within two weeks and posting bail bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties.

Ullas Sebastian Vs State Ofkerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4183 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1133/2020 OF PALA POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 8:

¶8

1 ULLAS SEBASTIAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AMBATTU HOUSE, KADAPPATTOOR POST, PALA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -686575.

¶9

2 BINDU ULLAS, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.ULLAS, AMBATTU HOUSE, KADAPPATTOOR POST, PALA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575.

¶10

3 C.T.JOSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT CHETHIMATTATHIL HOUSE, MUNDANKAL POST, PALA, KOTTAYAM - 686 574.

¶11

4 LILLY JOSEPH, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT CHETHIMATTATHIL HOUSE, MUNDANKAL POST, PALA, KOTTAYAM - 686 574.

¶12

B.A.No.4183 OF 2020

¶13

¶14

5 JOSEPH ANTONY, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, RESIDING AT MYLANKAL HOUSE, MULAKKUZHA POST - 689 505, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶15

6 MARYKUTTY JOSEPH, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH ANTONY, RESIDING AT MYLANKAL HOUSE, MULAKKUZHA POST - 689 505, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶16

7 ASHA S.PANIKKAR, AGED 41 YEARS, W/O.CHANDRABOSE, THANKA BHAVAN, MADAMON P.O. - 686 711, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, ATHIKKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶17

8 SURESH CHANDRABOSE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRABOSE, THANKA BHAVAN, MADAMON P.O. - 686711, VADASSERIKKARA VILLAGE, ATHIKKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN

¶19

RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶21

B.A.No.4183 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALA POLICE STATION, PALA POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575. 3 THE BRANCH MANAGER, IDBI BANK, PALA BRANCH, KOTTAYAM.

¶24

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

SRI.AMJAD ALI - SR.PP

¶27

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

B.A.No.4183 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Dated this the 05th day of August, 2020

¶32

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶33

The applicants are accused 1 to 8 in Crime No.1133 of

¶34

2020 of Pala Police Station, Kottayam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Subsequently, Sections 463, 468 and 471 IPC have also been incorporated.

¶35

The prosecution case in brief is that the applicants in furtherance of common intention, to cheat the 3^rd respondent/IDBI Bank, during the period 17.03.2015 to 07.05.2015, forged tax receipts of three village officers and produced it before the bank as genuine documents and dishonestly induced the Bank to grant agricultural loans. On the basis of a complaint, made by the village officer, crime was registered and the accused proceeded against. The accused would state that the loans taken by the applicants have already

¶36

B.A.No.4183 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

been closed long ago, though, it is disputed by the third respondent/bank, and it is submitted that certain dues still remains to be repaid. However, the question of forged tax receipts still remains, irrespective of whether the dues to the Bank is paid or not.

¶39

It is submitted that the maximum punishment, for the offences allegedly committed by the applicants attracts punishment upto 7 years imprisonment only. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the benefit of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.9400 of 2020 (Suo motu) and hence, they pray for a pre arrest bail in this matter.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor. R3 served. None appears. The question whether the forgery as alleged was committed by the applicants or by somebody else, is the only question that requires to be determined. The documents have to be taken into custody and sent for examination by an expert. I find no reason why the applicants should not co-operate with the investigation. The alleged forged documents are available with the Bank and

¶41

B.A.No.4183 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

therefore, there is nothing to be recovered from the applicants for the purpose of investigation. The applicants are not likely to abscond, since they have permanent place of abode, within the jurisdiction of the Police Station. Under the circumstances, the applicants are entitled to a pre arrest bail in this matter.

¶44

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and subject themselves to interrogation. In the event of 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 each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following further conditions:

¶45

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

¶46

(ii) They shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶47

(iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

¶48

B.A.No.4183 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the

¶51

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail

¶52

before the jurisdictional Court.

¶53

The bail application is allowed.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶56

NR/05/08/20

Ullas Sebastian v. State Ofkerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ullas Sebastian v. State Ofkerala

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

Aneesh Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Nishanth Vs State of Kerala

Nowfal Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Kumar Vs Public Prosecutor

Midhun Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Sreebil S Vs Public Prosecutor