Kerala High Court
K. Somakumari vs State Of Kerala on 14 July, 2014
Author: Thomas P.Joseph
Bench: Thomas P.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
MONDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2014/23RD ASHADHA, 1936
Bail Appl..No. 5237 of 2014 (D)
-------------------------------------------
[CRIME NO. 1789/2014 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION ,
KOLLAM DISTRICT]
.........
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
------------------------------------------
K. SOMAKUMARI, AGED 61 YEARS,
W/O.D.SREEVALLABHAN, SOUPARNIKA, K.S.PURAM.P.O,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE,
ADVS.SRI.R.ANIL,
SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR,
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B,
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR,
SRI.MANU TOM,
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL),
SRI.M.VIVEK.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Prv.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J
======================
B.A No.5237 of 2014
======================
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2014
ORDER
Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.1789 of 2014 of Karunagappally Police Station for the offence punishable under Sec.420 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that as per version of the de facto complainant, he had borrowed `50,000/- from the petitioner in the year, 2004 and given signed stamp papers, cheque leaves etc. as security. In the year, 2004 he borrowed another sum of `1,60,000/- from the petitioner and as security executed sale deed for of 10 cents in favour of the petitioner. He discharged the liability on account of his confidence in the petitioner. The documents were not taken back. later, B.A No.5237 of 2014 2 petitioner issued notice on behalf of another person alleging that de facto complainant had borrowed certain amount from that person and the cheque issued was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Complaint against de facto complainant is pending as C.C No.711/2007.
3. Learned senior Advocate submits that the allegations are not true. Notices were issued to the de facto complainant for which inconsistent defences were taken. It is submitted that the petitioner is only the counsel appearing for the complainant in C.C No.711/2007.
4. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, she has to be questioned by the investigating officer.
The application is allowed as under:
B.A No.5237 of 2014 3
It is directed that in case the petitioner is arrested in Crime No.1789/2014 of the Karunagappally Police Station, after she is interrogated, she shall be released by the Investigating Officer same day on her executing bond for `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties for the like sum before the arresting officer subject to the following conditions:
a) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case.
b) Petitioner shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation at all reasonable time and place.
c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses.B.A No.5237 of 2014 4
f) In case the petitioner violates any of condition Nos. (a) to (c), it is open to the investigating officer to move the jurisdictional magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC 100).
Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE
vdv //True copy// P.Ato Judge