Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATHOSH MATHEW versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SATHOSH MATHEW v. STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 3817 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 240 (14 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3817 of 2006()

1. SATHOSH MATHEW, S/O.K.T.MATHEW,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent

2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, PERUNAD POLICE

For Petitioner :SRI.PKM.HASSAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :14/07/2006

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

B.A.3817/2006

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner is the second accused, in crime No.60/2006 of Perunnad Police Station of Pathanamthitta District. It is alleged that the petitioner and two others had committed the offence, under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, as all of them had received an amount of Rs.1,09,500/-, from the defacto complainant, in the guise of giving NOC to the daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant for employment abroad. However, the transaction did not take place, as required by the law. Therefore, the defacto complainant demanded the money back. It is the plea of the petitioner that he had received an amount of Rs.30,000/- and he refunded Rs.25,000/-, the balance amount being Rs.5,000/-.

2. However, the learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, and basing on the C.D.file submits that the decacto complainant is from the poor circumstances and B.A.3817/2006 2 the money, received by the petitioner have to be returned, so that he can attempt to pay the money, and get employment through elsewhere.

3. In the facts situation of the case, I direct the petitioner, second accused, to surrender before the investigating officer of Perunnad Police Station, on 21.7.2006 between 10.30 a.m and 11.00 a.m., and the investigating officer shall interrogate the petitioner and thereafter, produce him before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranni, as per the law.

4. I make it clear that if the investigating officer requires the petitioner for further custodial interrogation, he may move an application before the court below for the custody of the petitioner and in such event, the learned Magistrate shall hear both sides and pass appropriate orders.

5. If the investigating officer do not file any application for custodial interrogation, and if the accused is produced before the Court below, the learned Magistrate, after hearing the APP of that Court, shall B.A.3817/2006 3 pass appropriate orders on the bail application, that may have filed by the petitioner, imposing such conditions, which are deemed necessary. The application is disposed of as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.