Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.MADHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.MADHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS v. THE STATE OF KERALA - Bail Appl No. 3809 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11254 (26 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Bail Appl No. 3809 of 2007()

1. K.MADHAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :26/06/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.

B.A.NO.3809 OF 2007

Dated this the 26th day of June, 2007

ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered under Secs.409 and 420 of the IPC. The crime has been registered on basis of a complaint filed before the learned Magistrate and referred to the police under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The crux of the allegations is that the petitioner, who had collected the amounts as an agent of a Chitty Company, had fraudulently bid the chitty without the knowledge, information or consent of the complainant and had appropriated such amounts without informing the de facto complainant for the purpose of the petitioner. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are totally unjustified. All the amounts collected have been remitted to the Canara Bank as seen from B.A.NO.3809 OF 2007 -: 2 :- the statement of accounts maintained in the Bank. The petitioner works as an agent of the Canara Bank.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the fact that the amounts have been remitted with the Canara Bank is no answer to the allegations raised against the petitioner. The allegation is that the chitty has been bid without the knowledge of the de facto complainant and the amount has been misappropriated. I find merit in the opposition of the learned Public Prosecutor. I do not find any circumstances that would justify the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The Case Diary has been placed before me for my perusal.

4. In the result, this Bail Application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioner surrenders before the Investigators or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and applies for bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the B.A.NO.3809 OF 2007 -: 3 :- Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/-

(R. BASANT, JUDGE)

Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge


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.