Dismissed

Vinod v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2021Bail Appl./2961/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Indian Penal Code sections 409, 420, 465, 468 and Information Technology Act sections 43 and 65, involving charges of academic fraud and illegal gratification, the court observed that custodial interrogation was necessary due to the serious nature of the allegations. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was dismissed and the petitioner was directed to surrender to the Investigating Officer.

Vinod v Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 2961 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO. 41/2021 OF CANTONMENT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶6

VINOD V AGED 42 YEARS S/O VISWAMBHARAN, FLAT NO. 3F, TOWER 6, ASSET SIGNATURE HOMES, MENAMKULAM, KAZHAKUTTAM P.O., THIRUVANTHAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695585

¶7

BY ADV SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031

¶10

BY SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶12

13.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Bail Appl.No.2961 OF 2021 2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 41/2021 of Cantonment Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram which was registered alleging offence under Section 409, 420, 465, 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 43 read with Section 65 of the Information Technology Act. The allegation is that, the petitioner was working as a Section Officer in the Examination Wing of the Kerala University; in that capacity, he manipulated records and magnanimously granted marks to students who had failed in examinations, using his own user I.D. and password.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already been dismissed from service, that he is prepared to co-operate with the investigation in all manner.

¶17

But the learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the application. According to him, at least four instances at which he had granted marks to those who had failed has been brought out; everything was done for illegal gratification; money transactions were done through his bank account. The said instances were noticed during the period from

¶18

Bail Appl.No.2961 OF 2021 3

¶19

2018-'19. In the nature of the allegations, custodial interrogation

¶20

of the petitioner is very much necessary.

¶21

After hearing counsel on both sides, I am also of the

¶22

view that the petitioner has to be interrogated in custody. Allegations against him are very serious. It is for the Investigation Officer to probe whether similar other instances also had occurred on his part. Therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to surrender before the Investigating Officer. In that event, the Investigating Officer shall consider his case with utmost expedition.

¶24

The bail application is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

DCS/14.07.2021

Vinod v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod v. Vs 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

C.K.Reji Vs State of Kerala

Irshad Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep T.K. Vs State of Kerala

Subash Chandrabose Vs State of Kerala

Binu Thomas Vs State of Kerala

1. Kalidasan alias Adarsh Sv, Vs State of Kerala