Allowed

Dr Vipila v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Nov 2020Bail Appl./4418/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, accused of cheating in a trust formation, was granted bail with surrender conditions and a bond amount, finding no reason for custodial interrogation despite the severity of charge.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks or be released after interrogation on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000 with conditions.

Dr Vipila 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 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4418 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 2040/2020 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

CRIME NO.453/2019 OF Nooranadu Police Station , Alappuzha

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

DR VIPILA AGED 32 YEARS W/O.SUNIL KALIAS, KARTHIKA, CHOOZHATTUKOTTA, VILAVOORKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 573.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.L.SHYAM

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 ADDL.R2 SAJANA.S AGED 36 YEARS KALATHIL THEKKETHIL VEEDU, PANAYILKUTTY, PANAYIL.P.O,NOORANAD, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690504 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.4418 OF 2020 2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 19th day of November 2020

¶20

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

¶21

The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No.453/2019 of Nooranadu Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 471 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case, in brief, is thus:- On 10.04.2018,

¶23

the applicant as the Chairperson, 2nd accused as the Vice Chairman and the 3rd accused as a Secretary, formed a trust named ‘Astanga Wellness Charitable Trust’ and convened a meeting at the residence of the de facto complainant, with 15 participants. The applicant and the co-accused assured them that loans would be arranged at the rate of Rs.75,000/- each to them for starting a self employment unit, and after assigning the de facto complainant as its President, they were induced to pay Rs.510/- each towards membership fee, and a further sum of Rs.10,000/-each was collected towards deposit for arranging the loan which they had been promised. But even though the accused

¶24

Bail Appl..No.4418 OF 2020 3

¶25

were successful in dishonestly inducing the de facto complainant and others to contribute money, they failed to arrange the loan and appropriated the money entirely for themselves and thus committed the offence.

¶26

The applicant states that she is an Ayurvedic Doctor and she was made the Chairperson of the Trust solely because she was a Doctor. The affairs were all managed by the co-accused. The applicant has no truck with them as far as collection of money is concerned. The applicant states that she is innocent. She has no criminal antecedents and she is willing to cooperate with the investigation. Custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. Hence, prays that she may be released on anticipatory bail. She had approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, but the same was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge for the reason that the applicant cannot escape from the clutches of law by imputing the allegations only on the other co-accused. A sum of Rs.1,91,820/- was allegedly swindled by the applicant and other co-accused. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of anticipatory bail. The applicant has therefore approached this Court for indulgence.

¶27

Bail Appl..No.4418 OF 2020 4

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

It is admitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents. She is a Doctor practicing Ayurvedic medicine at Thiruvananthapuram. The allegation is that she was the Chairperson of a trust named Astanga Wellness Charitable Trust. The affairs were managed by accused Nos.2 and 3, according to the applicant. She was made the Chairperson solely because she is a doctor by profession. There is no dispute that amounts were collected from several persons. The applicant has also nothing to offer regarding the reasons why the loans as promised were not arranged to the members. However, custodial interrogation of the applicant will not serve any purpose, as long as she is willing to cooperate with the investigation and available for interrogation, I do not find any reason to incarcerate the applicant.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of her being arrested, after interrogation, she shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties

¶31

Bail Appl..No.4418 OF 2020 5

¶32

each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on following condition:

¶33

(i) She shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of two

¶34

months or till the filing of the final report.

¶35

(ii) She shall not also attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

¶36

(iii) She shall not get involved in any other similar crimes during the currency of the bail.

¶37

In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶38

ASHOK MENON

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

rmm

Dr Vipila v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Vipila 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

Dilshad, Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Karun@Sajeev K Vs State of Kerala

Sureshan K Vs State of Kerala

Mary Sunesh Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudeen N Vs Public Prosecutor

Shihabudeen N Vs Public Prosecutor