Partly allowed

Rasmila v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2020Crl.MC/4485/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, accused in cheating case, obtained pre-arrest bail with condition to appear before IO every Saturday. She moved for modification due to length of time and lack of action on prosecution's bail cancellation application. High Court deleted the weekly appearance condition while preserving prosecution's right to seek cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Orders that condition No. 2 in Annexure A2 order, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer every Saturdays between 9 am and 10 am till the final report is filed, stands dele

Rasmila Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4485 OF 2020(A)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRMC 177/2020 DATED 23-09-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.148/2020 OF Infopark Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

RASMILA

¶10

AGED 32 YEARS W/O.THAUFEEK T.A., 13/415 C, MANSIL HOUSE, THRIKAKKARA P.O., VADACODE, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANJAY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH) SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN SHRI.PRASOON SUNNY SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PINCODE-682031 THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, INFO PARK POLICE STATION.

¶14

SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crmc 4485/2020

V.G.ARUN, J.

=========================== Crl.M.C.No.4485 of 2020

¶20

=========================== Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2020

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.148 of 2020 of InfoPark Police Station alleging commission of offences under Section 406 and 420 IPC. The first accused in the case is the petitioner's husband. The accused had moved an application for pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and by Annexure A2 order dated 25.01.2020, learned Sessions Judge rejected the request for bail for the first accused and allowed prearrest bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. Condition No.2 in Annexure A2 require the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9.00 am and 10.00 am, till the final report is filed.

¶23

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the conditions in Annexure A2 are being strictly complied with. While so, an application for modification of condition No.2 was filed and by the impugned order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application, mainly based on the report of the Investigating Officer that the petitioner had violated the bail conditions and that, an application for cancellation of bail has been filed.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the first accused has been granted bail by this court as per Annexure A9 order,

¶25

Crmc 4485/2020

¶26

¶27

whereunder the condition was that the first accused should appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays for interrogation between 10 am and 12 noon for a period of two months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that the two months period being over, the first accused is not required to appear before the Investigating Officer anymore, whereas the petitioner is compelled to appear, in spite of more than five months having elapsed. It is submitted that other than the repeated assertion of the prosecution that application for seeking cancellation of bail has been filed, no action in that regard is seen taken till date.

¶28

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶29

On examination of all relevant factors, I am inclined to allow the

¶30

Crl.M.C. In the result, condition No.2 in Annexure A2 order, requiring the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 am and 10 am, till the final report is filed, stands deleted. It is made clear that this order will not, in any manner, preclude the prosecution from seeking cancellation of petitioner's bail, if so warranted.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

lgk

Crmc 4485/2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.148/2020 OF INFOPARK POLICE STATION DATED 20.4.2020. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN TN NO.177/2020 DATED 21.5.2020.

¶39

ANNEXURE A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.1346/2020 IN CRL.MC (TN) NO.177/2020 DATED 23.9.2020. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 26.12.2018.

¶40

ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 24.4.2020. ANNEXURE A5(A) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 14.5.2020. ANNEXURE A5(B) TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 5.6.2020. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN I.A.NO.3/2020 IN CMA (ARB) NO.172/2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT ERNAKULAM DATED 13.8.2020.

¶41

ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.4/2020 IN C.M.A.(ARB) 172/2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SUB COURT ERNAKULAM DATED 18.9.2020.

¶42

ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.1011/2020 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION DATED 27.8.2020.

¶43

ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A.NO.3225/2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24.7.2020.

¶44

ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE CONVERSATION WITH MOHAMMED DATED NIL.

Rasmila v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasmila 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

K.P.Narayanan, Vs State of Kerala

Ubaidulla Vs the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Dona S Sukumar Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Kuttikrishnan Nambiar Vs Chief Secretary

Niyas @ Shaik Niyas Ahammed Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Kerala