Allowed

G.R. Neethu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jul 2023Bail Appl./1251/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to four accused persons charged with forgery and cheating. The court noted allegations of false implication but directed surrender for interrogation and imposed strict conditions including surrender, cooperation, and a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on surrender within two weeks, subject to bond of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties, mandatory surrender and interrogation, and strict conditions of non-influence and no tr

G.R. Neethu Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1251 OF 2022

¶6

CRIMENO.384/2021 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/A1 TO 14:

¶8

1 G.R. NEETHU

¶9

AGED 27 YEARS,W/O PRAVEEN
SANTHOSH BHAVAN, VILAPPILSALA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573

¶10

2 PRAVEEN AGED 34 YEARS S/O. RAVEENDRAN, SANTHOSH BHAVAN, VILAPPILSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573

¶11

3 RAHUL AGED 29 YEARS,S/O. RAMESH, ROHINI NIVAS, VILAPPILSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573

¶12

4 VIJAYAN AGED 57 YEARS S/O. MADHAVAN PANICKER, MADHAVAM, VILAPPILSALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695573

¶13

BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶15

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

¶16

2 NEENA MOL AGED 39 YEARS W/O. K.N. GOPAKUMAR, TRA 42, MEENAKSHI, THOZHUVANCODE LANE, VATTIYOORKKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695013 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

ADV MANU P G-SR PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.1251/2022

: 2 :

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in crime No.384/2021 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 380, 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The aforesaid crime was registered on the basis of complaint submitted by the defacto complainant with the following allegations. On 13.05.2020, the husband of the defacto complainant purchased stamp papers of Rs.100/- denomination and stored the same in his office. While so, her husband passed away, and thereupon, the petitioners have allegedly taken possession of the aforesaid stamp papers and forged the signature of the husband of the defacto complainant and created certain documents, in favour of the petitioners. Later, by producing the said documents before the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, they obtained an order of attachment over the property of the defacto complainant, and thus committed the

¶25

B.A.No.1251/2022

¶26

: 3 :

¶27

offences. This application for anticipatory bail is submitted by the petitioners, as the petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case.

¶28

Heard Sri.Shajin S. Hameed, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Manu P.G., the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent of all the allegations. According to him, the present crime was registered, with the sole purpose to circumventing the claim put forward by the petitioners before the Civil Court. It is pointed out that, the complaint was submitted before the police, after the defacto complainant received a notice in the aforesaid suit. The learned counsel further points out that, the petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation and shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application and pointing out that, the allegation of fabricating false evidence has been raised by the defacto complainant and the matter is under investigation.

¶31

I have gone through the records. It is true that there

¶32

B.A.No.1251/2022

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

are certain allegations against the petitioners. However, going through the nature of the allegations raised, I am of the view that, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as to false implication of the case cannot be s imply brushed aside. As per the case of the defacto complainant, the stamp papers were being kept by her husband after purchasing it on 13.05.2020, without making any endorsement therein. It was allegedly taken possession of the petitioners and misused the same. When considering the aforesaid question, the contentions made by the petitioners, in the suit for money filed before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the possibility of a false implication cannot be ruled out. Anyhow, this is a matter to be investigated and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in order to protect the personal liberty of the petitioners, this Court passed the following orders:

¶35

In such circumstances, this bail application is disposed of with the following directions:

¶36

(1) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting themselves to interrogation.

¶37

(2) After interrogation, the petitioners shall be released

¶38

B.A.No.1251/2022

¶39

: 5 :

¶40

on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶41

(3) The petitioners shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶42

(4) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m. every Saturday until the filing of the final report.

¶43

(5) The petitioners shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶44

(6) The petitioners shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶45

(7) The petitioners shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶46

(8) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶47

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the

¶48

B.A.No.1251/2022

¶49

: 6 :

¶50

jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate

¶51

orders in accordance with law.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

B.A.No.1251/2022

: 7 :

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1251/2022

¶58

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-APHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.384/2021 OF MALAYINKEEZHU POLICE
STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
Annexure-BPHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.NO.280/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure3PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
02/12/2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020 IN
O.S.NO.280/2020 OF THE PRINCIPAL SUB
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure-DFREE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
08/02/2022 IN CRL.M.C.NO.156/2022 OF
THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE-VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

G.R. Neethu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.R. Neethu 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

David Gishin.C.M. Vs State of Kerala

Laiju Vs State of Kerala

Kuriyan John Vs State of Kerala

Babu Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Nobel Lopez. B @ Nobel Nobert Vs State of Kerala

Amal E Vs State of Kerala