Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Anchor Daewod Industries Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 13 June, 2008

Author: K.Hema

Bench: K.Hema

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl..No. 3777 of 2008()


1. ANCHOR DAEWOD INDUSTRIES LTD,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA , REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA

 Dated :13/06/2008

 O R D E R
                            K.HEMA, J.
                   -------------------------------------------
                         B.A.No.3777 of 2008
                   -------------------------------------------
               Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008


                                   ORDER

Petition for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime registered under Sections 420 and 34 IPC on a private complaint filed against him and others. According to the prosecution, the petitioner company supplied sub-standard materials to the defacto complainant firm and caused wrongful loss to the defacto complainant and committed various offences. The defacto complainant was a dealer of M/s.Anchor Daewoo Industries which is the manufacturer of home appliances.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was a transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and the latter owed more than Rs.4 lakhs to the petitioner company. A cheque was given in connection with the transaction and it was dishonoured and hence, a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and a copy of the complaint is produced as Annexure A2. The defacto complainant filed the complaint as counter blast and the said BA 3777/08 2 case, it is submitted.

4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be available for interrogation since his interrogation is necessary because huge amount of money is involved. Petitioner is now in Korea and the learned counsel for the petitioner requests sufficient time for the petitioner to appear before the Investigating officer.

5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that a suitable direction can be issued in the matter and the following order is passed:

(i) The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating officer within 30 days from today and make himself available for interrogation.
(ii) In the event of his arrest, petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on condition that he will co-operate with the investigation and report for interrogation as and when directed by the police.

The petition is allowed.

K.HEMA, JUDGE csl