Sunitha Kumari N.R. v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/8TH PHALGUNA, 1936 Bail Appl.No. 982 of 2015 ------------------------------------ CRIME NO. 7/2015 OF MURIKKASSERY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI ........

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:

-------------------------------------------- SUNITHA KUMARI N.R., AGED 39 YEARS, W/O. SAJI, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, BETHEL POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S):

------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-02-2015 ALONG WITH BA.NO.985/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

msv/

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

------------------------------------- B.A.No.982 & 985 OF 2015 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of February, 2015 C O M M O N O R D E R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Petitions filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioner in B.A.No.982/2015 is the 2nd accused and the petitioner in the B.A.No.985/2015 is the 3rd accused. The allegation is that they have committed the offences under Sections 409, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 IPC. The 2nd accused is the Secretary of a Service Co-operative Bank and the 3rd accused was its Director during the relevant period. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are false.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4.

It appears that the evidence in the case is mainly based on documents already available. So the detention of the petitioner is not necessary for effective investigation. So I am inclined to grant the prayer for anticipatory bail. In the result, this Bail Applications are allowed. If the petitioners are arrested by the police in connection with this

B.A.Nos.982 & 985/2015 case, they shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate concerned. They shall not attempt to influence the witnesses or intimidate them nor shall they destroy the evidence. They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when they are so required by the investigating officer.

SD/- K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE.

Ps/27/2/2015 //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE