Jomon P R v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/3RD CHAITHRA, 1937 Bail Appl..No.1301 of 2015 ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.360/2015 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM). ..

PETITIONER/ACCUSED ---------------------------------- JOMON P.R,AGED 31 YEARS,S/O.RAJAN, POTTANMALAYIL HOUSE,PANADAPPILLY, MUVATTUPUZHA.

BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.

STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

2.

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, PIN-686673.

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

pk

B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

================ ======================= Dated this the 24th day of March, 2015

O R D E R

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.360/2015 of the Muvattupuzha Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 403 and 409 IPC. 3.

The allegation against the petitioner is that while he was working as the Postman at the Meenkunnam Post Office, he misappropriated an amount of ₹11,000/- which came to the post office by money orders in favour of one Kunjeli Thomman and Mathai Markose. Both the said persons were no more at the relevant time. It is alleged that he has misappropriated the amount by forging their signatures and affixing false thump impressions. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

5. It seems that the investigation of the case is practically

over. No criminal antecedents have been reported against the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the continued investigation of this case. Matters being so, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

5.

In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for ₹25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Tuesdays and Fridays, commencing from 31.3.2015 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final

report in this case, whichever is earlier.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of bail. Sd/- B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE stu //True copy// P.A to Judge