Allowed

Mukesh Gopinath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2020Bail Appl./8919/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed by the second accused in a cheque-dishonour and cheating case involving misappropriation from a cooperative bank. The Court released the accused on a bond with sureties under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount, subject to specific conditions.

Mukesh Gopinath Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.8919 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.2447/2020 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUKESH GOPINATH AGED 29 YEARS VIRANIKKAL VEEDU, MALAMEKARA, ADOOR P.O.. 689502

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

¶11

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl.No.8919 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Dated this the 18th day of December, 2020

¶18

APPLICATION FOR REGULAR BAIL U/S 439 Cr.P.C

¶19

The applicant is the accused No. 2 in Crime No.2447 of 2020 of Adoor, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 408, 417, 420 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

¶20

The prosecution case, in brief, is that between 2017 up to February 2020, while the applicant was working as cashier-in-charge of Pazhakulam Service Co-operative Bank Limited, high school junction branch Adoor, he, in furtherance of common intention with A1 misappropriated Rs.55,17,995/- from the said bank by forging false documents and thereby committed the offence. The first accused put the

¶21

Bail Appl.No.8919 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

blame entirely on the applicant while the applicant would state that he is not involved in the crime. The applications for anticipatory bail filed by both the accused were dismissed and they were directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer. The first accused is yet to surrender. But the applicant surrendered on 01.12.2020. and he has been remanded to judicial custody. The applicant maintains that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. His custodial interrogation is already completed. All the documents have been seized and he is co-operating with the investigation. And therefore, he may be granted regular bail.

¶24

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant is involved in one more crime for an offence under

¶25

Bail Appl.No.8919 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

Section 420 of IPC, in connection with money belonging to a temple. That apart, the applicant has no crimes registered against him. Considering the present pandemic situation and the fact that the custodial interrogation is already over, and he has been co-operating with the investigation and that he is not likely to abscond, he need not be detained any longer.

¶28

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court and on following further conditions:

¶29

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9.00 am and 12 noon for a

¶30

Bail Appl.No.8919 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

period of two months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶36

The bail application is allowed.

¶37

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶38

AJ/18.12.2020

Mukesh Gopinath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Gopinath 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

Thomas Daniel @ Roy Vs State of Kerala

Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sajikumar S Vs State of Kerala

Joby Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala