Allowed

N.V. George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Mar 2021Bail Appl./692/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the Court held that owing to the deletion of cheating and forgery charges, the offence under Section 468 IPC does not lie. With the remaining charges being bailable and no intention to arrest, apprehension was found misplaced, and bail was allowed with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The application is allowed; the applicant shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount subject to conditions under Section 438(2) C

N.V. George Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Bail Appl..No.692 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1032/2018 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

N.V. GEORGE AGED 60 YEARS NEREPARAMBIL HOUSE, GEO BHAVAN, KSRTC ROAD, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR 680307

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 2 ADDL.R2 K.P.JOHNY AGED 57 YEARS S/O.PAILY, RESIDING AT KANNAMPUZHAHOUSE, MEKKADUKARA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN - 683589. IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 2.3.2021 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2021. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. J.JULIAN XAVIER R2 BY ADV. SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN R2 BY ADV. SRI.PIOUS MATHEW R2 BY ADV. SRI.ROY JOSEPH R2 BY ADV. SMT.ANIES MATHEW

¶12

Bail Appl..No.692 OF 2021 2

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.HARIDAS

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.V.SREEJA-PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.692 OF 2021 3

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 29th day of March 2021

¶20

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

¶21

The applicant was originally arrayed as the 1st accused in Crime No.1032/2018 of Nedumbassery Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC.

¶22

2.The learned Public Prosecutor, under instructions, submits that offences under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC have been deleted and the present allegations are only under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and all the rest of the persons who have been arrayed as accused also been deleted from the party array and the applicant is now the sole accused in this crime. The crime was initiated on the basis of a private complaint which was filed by the de facto complainant and then referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶23

Bail Appl..No.692 OF 2021 4

¶24

The de facto complainant has also appeared through the counsel and he has a serious grievance about removing the offences under Sections 420 and120B. It is further stated that there are other offences also attracted in the crime which have not been incorporated in the FIR. If that is the case the proper remedy available to the de facto complainant is to file a protest complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate and pursue the matter independently. As of now, I find that even Section 468 will not lie because 420 has already been deleted and section 468 is attracted only if there is a forgery of documents for the purpose of cheating. Since cheating has not been alleged now, the offence under Section 468 will not be attracted. The rest of the offences alleged are all bailable. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the investigating officer has no intention to arrest the applicant for the meanwhile. Under the circumstances, the apprehension of arrest is misplaced.

¶25

The application is therefore disposed of based on the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and because Section 468 incorporated, which prima facie is not attracted.

¶26

Bail Appl..No.692 OF 2021 5

¶27

The application is allowed. In the event of the applicant being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of

¶28

the arresting officer and subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

SD/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

N.V. George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.V. George 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

Safanaz Vs State of Kerala

1. Basil P Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Razak @ Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev Karun Vs State of Kerala

Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Soumya Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala