Shyju vs State of Kerala

SHYJU vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 10, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1369849

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1369849
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.
Decided On: Jul 10, 2023
Case Number: Bail Appl./5087/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SHYJU

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....kannur. the said crime was registered for the offences punishable under sections 420 & 409 of the ipc.3. the prosecution case is that, an establishmentmade by name kannur urban nidhi limited, had collected an amount of rs.15,20,000/- from the defacto complainant as deposited by promising to pay interest @ 12% per month. thereafter the accused failed to return the said amount. the petitioner was the branch manager of the said establishment and he was implicated as the sixthaccused. accused nos.1 to 3 are the directors of the company and the remaining accused are the employees of the said establishment.4. the crime was registered in such circumstancesand as the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case, these applications for anticipatory bail is submitted in such circumstances.5. heard smt.thusara v, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the bail applications and sri.c.s.hrithwik, the learned senior public prosecutor appearing for the state.6. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat, the petitioner is only a paid employee, who was later relieved from the services, of the said company. the petitioner had no decisive role in management of the funds of the said company. the management of the funds of the said company was being done by the accused nos.1 to 3, who were already arrested.7. on the other hand, the learned public prosecutor opposed the said application by pointing out that, there are allegations against the petitioner and as part of the investigation, the accused nos.1 to 3, who are the directors of the company were already arrested and under detention. therefore, the dismissal of these applications was sought in such circumstances.8. i have gone through the records. it is evident that the petitioner is only an employee of the saidestablishment and the persons responsible for the management of the affairs of the company were already arrested. in such circumstances, i am of the view.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1945 CRIME NO.30 OF 2023 OF MAYYIL POLICE STATION, KANNUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED: SHYJU, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.N.BALAN, RESIDING AT SHYJU NIVAS, POST- THAZACHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT,, PIN - 670018 BY ADVS. THUSHARA.V C.VATHSALAN K.RAKESH ROSHAN

RESPONDENT/S: STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, PIN - 682031 OTHER PRESENT: ADV.C.S HRITWIK, SR.GP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ZIYAD RAHMAN, A.A, J BA No.5087 of 2023 th Dated this the 10 day of July, 2023

O R D E R

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the sixth accused in Crime No.30/2023 of Mayyil Police Station, Kannur. The said crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 409 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case is that, an establishment

made by name Kannur Urban Nidhi Limited, had collected an amount of Rs.15,20,000/- from the defacto complainant as deposited by promising to pay interest @ 12% per month. Thereafter the accused failed to return the said amount. The petitioner was the branch manager of the said establishment and he was implicated as the sixth

accused. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are the directors of the company and the remaining accused are the employees of the said establishment.

4. The crime was registered in such circumstances

and as the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case, these applications for anticipatory bail is submitted in such circumstances.

5. Heard Smt.Thusara V, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the bail applications and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that, the petitioner is only a paid employee, who was later relieved from the services, of the said company. The petitioner had no decisive role in management of the funds of the said company. The management of the funds of the said company was being done by the accused Nos.1 to 3, who were already arrested.

7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the said application by pointing out that, there are allegations against the petitioner and as part of the investigation, the accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the directors of the company were already arrested and under detention. Therefore, the dismissal of these applications was sought in such circumstances.

8. I have gone through the records. It is evident that the petitioner is only an employee of the said

establishment and the persons responsible for the management of the affairs of the company were already arrested. In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the interest of justice would be served, if the cooperation

of the petitioner with the investigation is ensured. No custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary. In the result, the application is allowed on the following conditions:- i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation. ii) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be

released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

iii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded. iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until the filing of the final report.

v) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required. vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail. vii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation. viii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN, A.A, JUDGE R.AV

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties SHYJU vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Ziyad Rahman a.a.