Allowed

Manoj v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jan 2020Bail Appl./44/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Ernakulam, granted regular bail to the second accused in a cheating case involving misappropriation of funds. The court held that detention was not required to complete the investigation as all documents were seized and ruled the case does not demand further custody.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on execution of a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties and compliance with standard bail conditions.

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

¶1

Bail Appl..No.44 OF 2020 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 4TH MAGHA, 1941

¶6

Bail Appl..No.44 OF 2020

¶7

CRIME NO.1742/2019 OF Neyyattinkara Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED :

¶9

MANOJ

¶10

AGED 41 YEARS S/O. MURALEEDHARAN, MURALI BHAVAN, NEAR NEMOM POST OFFICE, KARUMAM DESAM, KARUMAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 002.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SREEJA V

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.01.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.44 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This application is for regular bail under Section 439

¶21

of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime

¶23

No.1742/2019 of Neyyattinkara Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with

¶24

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

The petitioner has been in custody since 19.12.2019.

¶26

The prosecution allegation is that this petitioner along

¶27

with the other accused have formed a group of nine members

¶28

promising that they could arrange loan of Rs.20,000/- from

¶29

Co-operative Credit Society and the members have availed the

¶30

same. Thereafter, the said amount have to be returned by way of

¶31

instalments. When the members of the group had returned the

¶32

Bail Appl..No.44 OF 2020 3

¶33

instalment amount, the petitioner and the other accused did not

¶34

remit the amount in the Co-operative Society and

¶35

misappropriated the entire amount and thus cheated those nine persons and the Society. Thereafter they have formed another 35 groups of 10 members each, promising that they would arrange a loan of Rs.1 lakh each from NABARD and collected Rs.2200/- each as the initial expenses to arrange the loan. But

¶36

they did not arrange the loan and they have cheated those members and thus misappropriated a sum of Rs.8,87,000/- and

¶37

thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶38

Heard both sides

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

¶40

he has not committed any offence as alleged and he is totally

¶41

innocent. But he has been falsely implicated in the case.

¶42

The learned public prosecutor has opposed the

¶43

application and submitted that the offences alleged against

¶44

Bail Appl..No.44 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

this petitioner are grave and serious in nature as he with the

¶47

other accused have cheated very poor people of the locality by giving false promise. The entire amount has been shared by the accused and hence, the investigating agency would require

¶48

some more time to file the final report.

¶49

On a perusal of the records it could be seen that the

¶50

entire documents involved in the case, which are required for the investigation of the case had been seized by the investigating agency. The petitioners are in custody from 19.12.2019.

¶51

Considering the nature of the accusations levelled against this petitioner and the present stage of investigation, I do not find any reason to think that further detention of the petitioner in custody is required to complete the investigation and to file the final report.

¶52

Considering the said facts, I am inclined to release him

¶53

Bail Appl..No.44 OF 2020 5

¶54

on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶55

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶56

(ii) He shall be made available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him ,in writing.

¶57

(iii) He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶58

(iv) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶59

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶60

Bail Appl..No.44 OF 2020 6

¶61

the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in

¶62

accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

smm

Manoj v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. the 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

Muhammed Faseem K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Gokul Vs State of Kerala

Arun Vs State of Kerala

M.H.Hameed Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Jabir Mullali Vs the Intelligence Officer