Allowed

Sreenivasan.K, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Feb 2024Bail Appl./11531/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pre-arrest bail sought by accused in three cheating/forgery crimes involving fabricated vehicle release orders. Court granted bail, following its earlier order in similar crimes on findings they were absent at the scene, roped in via co-accused confession, with FIR registration delay.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted: surrender within ten days; on arrest, release on Rs.25,000 bond each with two solvent sureties, subject to cooperation and non-interference conditions.

Sreenivasan.K, Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 11513 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.857/2023 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶7

1 SREENIVASAN.K, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. KRISHNASAMI, NO.12, FRIENDS COLONY, VANIYAPURAMPIRIVU, POLLACHI, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 642006

¶8

2 SALEEM BAI @ ABDUL SALEEM K.S, AGED 55 YEARS PUTHUKULANGARA,KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004 BY ADV P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA (SHO MANKADA POLICE STATION)., PIN - 682031

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SR PP SMT SEETHA S ,SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK , PP SMT SHYNI V O

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..11518/2023 & 11531/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.No.11513/2023 & connected cases

¶15

-:2:-

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶19

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 11518 OF 2023

¶20

CRIME NO.865/2023 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶21

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶22

1 SREENIVASAN.K, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. KRISHNASAMI, NO.12, FRIENDS COLONY, VANIYAPURAMPIRIVU, POLLACHI, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 642006 2 SALEEM BAI @ ABDUL SALEEM K.S, AGED 55 YEARS PUTHUKULANGARA,KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004 BY ADV P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶23

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶24

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA (SHO MANKADA POLICE STATION)., PIN – 682031

¶25

SR PP SMT SEETHA S ,SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK , PP SMT SHYNI V O

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..11513/2023 & 11531/2023, THE COURT

¶27

ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

B.A.No.11513/2023 & connected cases

¶29

-:3:-

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶33

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 19TH MAGHA, 1945

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 11531 OF 2023

¶35

CRIME NO.866/2023 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶36

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶37

1 SREENIVASAN.K, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. KRISHNASAMI, NO.12, FRIENDS COLONY, VANIYAPURAMPIRIVU, POLLACHI, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 642006 2 SALEEM BAI @ ABDUL SALEEM K.S, AGED 55 YEARS PUTHUKULANGARA, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY, PIRAYIRI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678004 BY ADV P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶38

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶39

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA (SHO MANKADA POLICE STATION), PIN – 682031 SR PP SMT SEETHA S , SR PP SRI C S HRITHWIK , PP SMT SHYNI V O

¶40

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶41

08.02.2024, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL..11513/2023 & 11518/2023, THE COURT

¶42

ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶43

B.A.No.11513/2023 & connected cases

¶44

-:4:-

¶45

COMMON ORDER

¶46

[Bail Appl. Nos.11513/2023, 11518/2023 & 11531 of 2023]

¶47

These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(‘Code’, for short), for orders of pre-arrest bail.

¶48

The petitioners are reported to be the accused 5 & 6 in Crime Nos.857, 865 & 866 of 2023 of the Mankada Police Station, Malappuram for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶49

The common case of the prosecution, in brief, in the crimes is that: on 21.10.2023, one Mufeeda, w/o.

¶50

Abdul Jaleel had filed a complaint before the police alleging that fabricated release orders of the office of

¶51

B.A.No.11513/2023 & connected cases

¶52

-:5:-

¶53

the Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna were produced to release lorry bearing Nos.KL-58/5833, KL-1OQ-4517 & KL-12C 2034. Later, it was revealed that the said release orders were forged and fabricated. The accused on the basis of the fabricated release orders got the above vehicles released and caused loss to the vehicle owners. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

¶54

Heard; Sri.P.P. Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Seetha S. & Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutors appearing for the respondents.

¶55

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are totally innocent of the accusations levelled against them. They have been falsely implicated in the crimes. The petitioners have not committed the offences as alleged against them. The petitioners were not at the scene of

¶56

-:6:-

¶57

B.A.No.11513/2023 & connected cases

¶58

occurrence when the vehicles were released. Taking into account the above factors, this Court, by Annexure A order dated 15.12.2023 in B.A.Nos.10363 & 10386 of 2023, passed orders of pre-arrest bail in favour of the petitioner in similar crimes, on the specific findings that the petitioners were not at the scene of occurrence when the alleged incident were occurred. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of a similar order in these cases also. Hence, the applications may be allowed.

¶59

The learned Public Prosecutors strenuously opposed the applications. The Investigating Officers have filed separate bail objection reports in all the three cases. The Investigating Officers has asserted that the petitioners had made the other accused release the vehicles from the police station and have sold the vehicles as scrap in the State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioners' custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶60

-:7:-

¶61

B.A.No.11513/2023 & connected cases

¶62

Therefore, the applications may be dismissed.

¶63

Indisputably, in crime No.893/2023 of

¶64

Mankada police station itself, a case registered against the petitioners on very same set off allegations, this Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioners were not at the scene of occurrence when the alleged incident took place, that the petitioners have been roped in solely on the basis of the alleged confession of the co-accused and that there is an inordinate delay in registering the FIR, for which there is no plausible explanation, granted orders of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶65

In the light of the Annexure -A order, I do not find any reason to take a divergent view in the cases on hand. Hence, I am inclined to allow these bail applications subject to the same conditions as in Annexure A order.

¶66

In the result, these Bail Applications are allowed

¶67

B.A.No.11513/2023 & connected cases

¶68

-:8:-

¶69

subject to the following conditions:

¶70

(i) The petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today, and on such surrender, the Investigating Officer can interrogate the petitioners. In the event of their arrest, the Investigating officer shall produce the petitioners before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself.

¶71

(ii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioners on bail, on executing separate bonds for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) each by the petitioners and by two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶72

(iii) 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.

¶73

(iv) The petitioners shall not intimidate the

¶74

B.A.No.11513/2023 & connected cases

¶75

-:9:-

¶76

witnesses or interfere with the Investigation in any manner.

¶77

(v) The petitioners shall not be involved in any offence while on bail.

¶78

(vi) It is made clear that it is within the power of police to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioners, even when the petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [2021 (1) KHC 663] .

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

shg

Sreenivasan.K, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivasan.K, 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

Sivaji, Vs State of Kerala

Ananthu v Vs State of Kerala

Ganesh Kumar K, Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Farshad, Vs State of Kerala

Ananthu Vinod Vs State of Kerala

V E Moyi Haji, Vs State of Kerala