Sachin Balakrishna v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/6TH ASWINA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 5822 of 2015 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1924/2014 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM ----------------- PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO 8 :
-------------------------------------------- SACHIN BALAKRISHNA AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, CHITHIRA, P.O KALPATHUR MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE - 673 524.
BY ADV. SRI.A.D.RAVEENDRA PRASAD RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, COCHIN CITY COCHIN - 682 026.
3. ADDITIONAL SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., COCHIN - 682 018.
R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. REMA THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-09-2015, ALONG WITH BA NO. 5824/2015 & BA NO. 5825/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of September, 2015
O R D E R
Application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.
Accused person is involved in three crimes bearing Nos.1924 of 2014, 1999 of 2014 and 2056 of 2014 of 2015 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. 3.
The allegations in the complaint are almost identical. It is alleged that the petitioner along with other persons with an intention to cheat the de facto complainants in various cases and other customers of M/s. Artic Jewelley and Diamonds Pvt. Limited received various amounts to be deposited in the gold purchase scheme and thereafter, made defaults in returning either any gold or cash.
4.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.
5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was a paid Manager of the Company in the
Facilities department.
6.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this submission contending that from 06.01.2011 onwards he was a Director in the Company.
7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the relatives of deceased Managing Director have been impleaded in this case as accused and they are unnecessarily victimized in this case. He submitted that the petitioner is not a Director at present.
8.
Considering the nature of the allegations, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with the following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within a period of 'two weeks' from today and submit himself for interrogation. Thereafter, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for `50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer.
(b) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of interrogation.
(c) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.
(d) The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses.
(e) The petitioner shall not in any manner interfere or meddle with the investigation.
(f) Petitioner shall not, during the period of this bail get involved in any offence.
In case any of the above conditions is violated, bail granted hereby is liable to be cancelled for which the investigating officer may move application before the jurisdictional magistrate.
Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
AS //True copy// P.A to Judge