Partly allowed

Sindhu Kumari, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022Bail Appl./8001/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered an anticipatory bail application filed by a first accused in a cheating case involving fake gold ornaments. The court denied bail and directed the petitioner to surrender to the investigating officer within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender before investigating officer within two weeks.

Sindhu Kumari, Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943 BAIL APPL.NO. 8001 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.10/CB/TVM/18 OF CRIME BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

(CRIME NO.570 OF 2017 OF KOVALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SINDHU KUMARI, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SYAMALAYAM HOUSE, CHEBUKULAM, PANANGODE, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695521.

¶9

BY ADVS. MITHUN P. AFSAL KHAN H.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2 SOYA RAJENDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. RAJENDRAN, T.C. NO. 28/968, UTHRADAM PRA-19, SREEKANDESWARAM, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶12

SRI.M.C.ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL

¶14

HEARING ON 22.12.2021, THE COURT ON 05.01.2022 DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.8001 of 2021

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶19

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶20

B.A.No. 8001 of 2021

¶21

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2022

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶24

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.10/CB/TVM/18 of Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram (Crime No.570 of 2017 of Kovalam Police Station) for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶25

The prosecution allegation is as follows:

¶26

The petitioner is an A-Class Member of the District Tourism Welfare Society, Azhakulam. She, with the aid and connivance of accused Nos.2 to 4 and in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the said society, pledged 72 number fake gold ornaments in the society 65 times in the society and received an amount of Rs.42,54,700/-.

¶27

The petitioner contends that she was falsely

¶28

¶29

B.A.No.8001 of 2021

¶30

implicated in the case and it was an offshoot of rivalry between two political groups in the helm of affairs of the society. The incident allegedly had occurred much earlier and the respondents are now taking hasty steps to arrest and detain the petitioner, which is absolutely unwanted in the nature of allegations in the case.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. A report of

¶32

the investigating officer has been placed on record as well.

¶33

The crime was originally registered in 2017. In 2018, the investigation in the matter was taken over by the crime branch. It is reported that all the documents relating to the commission of the offence have been seized by the investigating officer. Statements of 25 witnesses have already been recorded. The contention of the petitioner that she is innocent and as a consequence of political rivalry, she has been made a scapegoat cannot be countenanced since it is quite evident from the report of the investigating officer that the complicity of the petitioner to the offence has been

B.A.No.8001 of 2021

established.

Same or different fake gold ornaments were repeatedly pledged and Rs.42,54,700/- was swindled off from the co-operative society. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the entire amount has been repaid and the society did not sustain any loss. That is a fact yet to be verified by the investigating agency. Even if the entire money availed as loan has been repaid, the offence would not get effaced. In order to conclude the investigation in a proper way, the presence of the petitioner is quite essential. She being a lady aged about 50 years, her detention during the period of investigation may not be essential. The time lag since registration of the crime has also been a relevant factor. Taking into account all such matters, the application is disposed of directing the applicant to surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks. In the event of her surrendering before the investigating officer, she shall, after interrogation and necessary other formalities of investigation, be produced

¶38

¶39

B.A.No.8001 of 2021

¶40

before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on the same day. If any bail application is filed by the petitioner, on such production, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same, as far as possible, on the same day.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶43

Sindhu Kumari, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu Kumari, 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

Muhammed Sudheer, Vs State of Kerala

Aniyan @ Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh (A-1) Vs State of Kerala

Firose Babu Vs State of Kerala

Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Sajan Raj Vs State of Kerala