Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Dinesh Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 01, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1153854

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dinesh Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....of 2014 ---------------------------------------- dated this the 1st day of july, 2014 order petitioner is accused in crime no.498 of 2014 of the vallikunnam police station for the offences punishable under section 17 of the kerala money lenders act, section 3 r/w section 4 of the kerala prohibition of charging exorbitant interest act, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.2. learned public prosecutor has opposed the application. it is submitted that on getting information about the petitioner engaging money lending business without authority, the police searched house of the petitioner on 18.05.2014 and seized 2 signed blank cheque leaves, one signed cheque, one stamp paper of 100 rupee denomination and one white paper affixed with revenue stamp.3. learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. according to the learned counsel, documents seized are not in connection with any money lending business.4. having regard to nature of allegations, i am satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. hence i am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions. b.a.no.4692 of 2014 2 application is allowed as under: (i) petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating crime no.498 of 2014 of the vallikunnam police station on 07.07.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) in case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply. (iii) in case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be released by the arresting officer (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each before the arresting officer and subject to the following conditions: (a) one of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner. (b) petitioner shall report to the investigating officer.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY,THE1T DAY OF JULY201410TH ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 4692 of 2014 () ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 498/2014 OF VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT ------------------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------ DINESHKUMAR, S/O.SHANKARA PILLAI, AGED39YEARS ACHUTHAKLAYAM HOUSE, KATTACHIRA MURI, BHARANIKKAVU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.A.J.VARGHESE SRI.JOSE. V.V. RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT : ----------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REP. FOR S.I.OF POLICE, VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C. RASHEED THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0107-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.No.4692 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petitioner is accused in Crime No.498 of 2014 of the Vallikunnam Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, Section 3 r/w Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that on getting information about the petitioner engaging money lending business without authority, the Police searched house of the petitioner on 18.05.2014 and seized 2 signed blank cheque leaves, one signed cheque, one stamp paper of 100 rupee denomination and one white paper affixed with revenue stamp.

3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. According to the learned counsel, documents seized are not in connection with any money lending business.

4. Having regard to nature of allegations, I am satisfied that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions. B.A.No.4692 of 2014 2 Application is allowed as under: (i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.498 of 2014 of the Vallikunnam Police Station on 07.07.2014 at 10 a.m for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply. (iii) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be released by the arresting officer (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each before the arresting officer and subject to the following conditions: (a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner. (b) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation. (c) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. (d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. B.A.No.4692 of 2014 3 (e) Petitioner shall not engage in money lending business without licence from the appropriate authorities. (f) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case. (iv) In case the petitioners violate any of condition Nos. (b) to (f), it is open to the investigating officer to move the jurisdictional magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 2006 SC100. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial