High CourtsSingle Bench(2018) 02 KL CK 0056

JOHNSON vs STATE OF KERALA & ANR

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 2 February 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Narayana Pisharadi
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
8895 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 472 words
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The petitioner is the third accused in the case registered as Crime No.1894/2014 of the Kodungallur Police Station under Sections 465, 468,

471 and 420 r/w 34 I.P.C.

3.

The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant had pledged gold ornaments in Muthoot Fincorp Ltd. and obtained money from there, but,

subsequently, she came to know that the second accused, the mother of her husband, forged an authorisation letter in her name and got the gold

ornaments from the aforesaid finance company. Thereafter, the loan transaction was renewed in the name of the second accused. The petitioner is

the Manager of the aforesaid finance company. The allegation against him is that it was with his knowledge and consent, that the loan transaction

was renewed in the name of the second accused.

4.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the Case Diary.

5.

At the time of hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the Sessions Court concerned has granted anticipatory bail to the first

and the second accused in the case and that the State has not challenged the order of that Court. The petitioner herein, the third accused in the

case, was only the Manager of the finance company where the gold ornaments were pledged by the defacto complainant. Prima facie, it appears

that he had no role in the commission of the offences of forgery and cheating. At any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary

to have an effective investigation in the case. The prosecution has also no apprehension that on getting bail, the petitioner would flee from justice. In

these circumstances, I find that the discretion of the Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant him pre-arrest bail.

6.

In the result, the petition is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

1) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each of the like

amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No.1894/2017 of Kodungallur Police Station.

2) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 09 a.m and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of two months after being

released on bail.

3) The petitioner shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses, including the defacto complainant. He will not make any

attempt to tamper with the evidence in the case.

4) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional court concerned.

5) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed in writing to do so.