V.V Govindan v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/9TH ASHADHA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 3664 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 103/2014 OF CHITTARIKKAL POLICE STATION, KASARGOD DISTRICT ------------------ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 :
-----------------------------------------------------
1. V.V. GOVINDAN, S/O.V.V. AMBU, AGED 55 YEARS VADAKKE VEETTIL, KAMBALLUR P.O.
2. P.P. SANTHOSH, S/O.APPU, AGED 42 YEARS PUTHIYA PURAYIL, KAMBALLUR P.O.
3. K.RAGHAVAN NAMBIAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, AGED 72 YEARS, KUNNUMEL HOUSE, KAMBALLUR P.O.
4. M.V. BABU, S/O.GOVINDAN NAIR, AGED 48 YEARS, MAVILA HOUSE, KAMBALLUR P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.V.VAMANA KUMAR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD RESPONDENT/COMPLAINNAT/STATE :
-------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn
K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH J.
....................................................... ..................................................... Dated this the 30th day of June, 2015 O R D E R This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Code.
2. The case of the applicants is that they are apprehending arrest and detention in connection with Crime No.103/2014 of Chittarikkal Police Station. When the application came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted before me that the allegation is that petitioners had committed offences under Sections 415, 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the functioning of a Trustee Committee of Kambalur Sree Bhagawathy Temple. The allegation is that petitioners embezzled money of the Temple Committee by producing fake receipts, without showing the proper income on records etc.
3. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.
4. The Public Prosecutor submitted before me that at present the police is not intending to arrest the petitioners. At the same time, the Prosecutor submitted before me that the recovery of documents may be necessary.
5. Considering the submission of the Prosecutor as well as facts of the case the following order passed. 1.
The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days of this order. On such appearance the Investigating Officer will be at liberty to interrogate the petitioners. If the interrogation is not over, he is at liberty to continue the interrogation on the next day or on a day which will be fixed by the Investigating Officer, but not later than seven days of their first appearance.
2.After completion of the interrogation, if the police officer feels that arrest is necessary, he is at liberty to arrest the petitioners. After arrest, if any recovery is necessary that also can be made. Thereafter the petitioners shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned.
3. After release on bail, petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays in between 10 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months.
4. The petitioners shall not commit similar offence during the bail period.
5. The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses.
On the above conditions, this anticipatory bail application allowed.
Sd/- K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE rka /true copy/ P.S to Judge.