Kerala High Court
Jose Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2016
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAYOF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 4284 of 2016
------------------------------------------
CRIME NO. 617/2016 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION
-----------------
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 :
--------------------------------------------------
JOSE THOMAS,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS,
MEKKAT HOUSE, ANAKKAL P.O.,
KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM-686 508
BY ADVS. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS
SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
----------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
.........................................................
B.A.No.4284 of 2016
.........................................................
Dated this the 07th July, 2016
O R D E R
1.First accused in Ernakulam Town North Police Station in Crime No.617/2016 involved in offences punishable Sections 406, 417, 419 and Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code seeks pre arrest bail.
2.Annexure I is the FIS. The case borne out from the FIS is that the petitioner was working as Operations Manager in Yellow Express India Pvt.Ltd., a company running online taxi service. It is the case of the de facto complainant that on 20.04.2016, he was made to believe that Rs.25,000/- will be given to him, if he purchased a car and gave it for plying as a taxi. It is the further case that later the de facto complainant came to note that the petitioner had been involved in another fraud and he is evading the legal process.
3.Heard both sides.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that B.A.No.4284 of 2016 : 2 : going by the entire allegations in Annexure I, no offence could be seen to have made out. According to the learned counsel, only on the basis of an apprehension, the petitioner is implicated in the crime.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner's presence is required for interrogation and therefore, the following directions are issued:
1.The petitioner shall in two weeks appear before the investigating officer and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter, he shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two sureties. In that event, he shall be released on bail in the crime.
3.He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when directed.
5.It is made clear that for no reason time to surrender will be extended.
Sd/-
A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge