Allowed

P.S.Jabanisa Beevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Feb 2021Bail Appl./6432/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Courant granted pre-arrest bail to the accused who is a relative of the complainant in a case alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust, citing matrimonial disputes and lack of criminal antecedents as factors allowing non-custodial investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on executing a bond with two sureties, reporting periodically, not influencing witnesses, and other standard conditions.

P.S.Jabanisa Beevi Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6432 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1035/2020 OF Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/ ACCUSED :

¶8

P.S.JABANISA BEEVI, AGED 59 YEARS, KANJIRAVILAYIL VEEDU, THAMARAKKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690 530

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682 031

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION, MAVELIKKARA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690 101

¶13

3 BANASIR SHAJI, AGED 38 YEARS, LAILA MANZIL (HAZEENA MANZIL), CANTONMENT SOUTH NAGAR - 142, CHINNAKKADA, PIN – 691 001

¶14

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SYLAJA S.L. R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.6432 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 1st day of February 2021

¶20

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 1035/2020 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha District alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.

¶22

Prosecution case is that the accused had manipulated and fabricated certain documents to divert the Insurance Policy amounts due to the de facto complainant into some other accounts.

¶23

I have heard Adv.Mohan Lal, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor Smt.Sylaja S.L., and Adv.S.Sreekumar (Kollam), the learned counsel for the de facto complainant.

¶24

It is an admitted fact that there are matrimonial disputes between the de facto complainant and her husband and the petitioner in this case is the relative of the husband. In view of the fact that there are matrimonial disputes between the parties, I am of the opinion that taking into reckoning the nature and gravity of the allegations, the absence of criminal antecedents against the petitioner,

¶25

Bail Appl..No.6432 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

chances of him fleeing from justice, and other circumstances, custodial interrogation may not be required for an effective investigation. This is thus a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted on the following conditions :-

¶28

i. It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No. 1035/2020 of Mavelikkara Police Station, Alappuzha District, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest.

¶29

ii. The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 10.00 a.m.and 12.30 p.m. on every first and third Saturdays for two months or till the final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶30

iii. The petitioner 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.

¶31

iv. The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶32

Bail Appl..No.6432 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

v. The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶35

vi. Petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶36

vii. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the court concerned, on being intimated of that fact, will be empowered to cancel the bail.

¶37

The application is allowed as above.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶40

RKM

P.S.Jabanisa Beevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Jabanisa Beevi 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

Prasanna K.M. Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Mathai Kutty Vs S.Vijayalekshmi

Rajankunju, S/O.Anthony Nadar Vs State of Kerala

Shyamala, D/O. Sarojini, Vs State of Kerala

Sudhakaran, S/O. Damodaran, Vs State of Kerala

Prakash K.M, aged 54years old , S/o Chandrashekharan Nair, Lakshmi Krishna,ThiruvilwamalaP.O, Tris Vs State of Kerala Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam Pin-682018