Prashob v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 7469 of 2015 -------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1247/2015 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE ..........

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

--------------------------------------- PRASHOB, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. SIVADASAN, GOSALAKKAL HOUSE, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

-------------------------------------------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE , MEDICAL COLLEGE OF POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 008.

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: msv/

A. HARIPRASAD, J.

----------------------------- Bail Appl. No.7469 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December 2015

O R D E R

Bail application filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

2. Petitioner is accused in Crime No.1247 of 2015 of Medical College Police station registered for the offences punishable under Secs.408, 420 and 477A read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that, the petitioner along with other accused, as employees of a supermarket, misappropriated money to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a partner along with the defacto complainant and other partners. He was working as a paid employee as well. The case that the petitioner misappropriated money is false. He wanted his investment to be returned. Regarding which, there were disputes between the partners and he is falsely implicated

Bail Appl. No.7469 of 2015 2 in this case.

Considering the nature of allegations, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Hence following directions are issued.

1. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks and submit himself for interrogation.

2. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released 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 investigating officer.

3. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when directed by him in writing.

4. The petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

Bail Appl. No.7469 of 2015 3 In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law without referring the matter to this Court.

Sd/- A. HARIPRASAD JUDGE / True Copy / NS/07/12/2015 P.A. To Judge