Allowed

Shinimol M.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Sept 2023Bail Appl./4/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Shinimol M.P, an accused in a cheating case. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions including execution of bond, appearance when summoned, and non-interference with investigation or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on anticipatory bail subject to conditions: bond of Rs.50,000, appearance when summoned, and no interference with investigation.

Shinimol M.P Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 17TH BHADRA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 10631 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶6

SHINIMOL M.P AGED 40 YEARS D/O SHYAMALA ANVY CASIL, AKN ROAD SHANTHIVILA, KALLIYUR NEMAM P.O, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 69502

¶7

BY ADV AJEESH S.BRITE

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶10

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

¶11

SMT. SREEJA V -PP

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.10631 of 2022

ORDER

This bail application has been filed by one Shinimol M.P. who stands accused in Crime No.1517 of 2022 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 420, 406 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This crime has been registered following a reference for investigation by the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, upon a private complaint preferred by the complainant. The allegation against the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner along with her husband had promised the complainant that they would set up super markets on franchisee model and collected huge sums of money on that basis.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the

¶18

B.A.No.10631 of 2022

¶19

¶20

matter. It is submitted that near to 33 cases have been registered against the husband of the petitioner and only in seven of those cases the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Central Government employee and owing to the activities of her husband, the petitioner and her two children are staying separate from her husband. It is submitted that divorce proceedings are also pending between the petitioner and her husband. It is submitted that the petitioner had absolutely no role in the matter and the allegations raised against her by the complainant are false.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit

¶22

that the case was registered on the basis of private complaint preferred before the jurisdictional Magistrate. It is submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, it may affect the investigation of the case.

¶23

B.A.No.10631 of 2022

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶26

would submit that regular bail has been granted in

¶27

most of these cases to her husband who was arrested

¶28

and had been in custody. It is submitted that the petitioner will fully co-operate with the investigation and the detention of the petitioner will cause serious prejudice as the same would even affect the employment of the petitioner.

¶29

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. Petitioner is the accused in seven cases while the petitioner's husband faces allegations of similar nature in several other cases also. The petitioner and her husband are stated to be living separately. Two minor children are staying with the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in

¶30

B.A.No.10631 of 2022

¶31

¶32

Crime No.1517 of 2022 of Ernakulam Central Police Station.

¶33

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Crime No.1517 of 2022 of Ernakulam Central Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶34

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer;

¶35

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.1517 of 2022 of Ernakulam Central Police Station as and when summoned to do so;

¶36

(iii) Petitioner shall not attempt to contact the complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.1517 of 2022 of Ernakulam Central Police Station;

¶37

B.A.No.10631 of 2022

¶38

¶39

(iv) Petitioner shall not involve in any other crime

¶40

while on bail.

¶41

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.1517 of 2022 of Ernakulam Central Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶42

Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶43

SSK/08/09

Shinimol M.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinimol M.P 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

Nandini Biju Vs State of Kerala

Shihabudheen Vs the State of Kerala

1. Jimson James Vs State of Kerala

Shinimol M.P Vs State of Kerala

Shinimol M.P Vs State of Kerala

Shinimol M.P Vs State of Kerala