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.

Sreejith vs State of Kerala

Sreejith vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 30, 2021
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1632313

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 Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Bail Appl./3228/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sreejith

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....is an application filed u/s 438 of code of criminal procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.2. the petitioner is the first accused in crime no. 119 of 2021 of valanchery police station. the offences alleged are under sections 420, 406 and 409 read with section 34 of the indian penal code.3. the prosecution case in short is that the petitioner while working as branch manager in k.p.b. nidhi limited at valanchery, gave gold loan of rs.15.2 lakhs to thesecond accused and on 11.12.2020, he returned the gold ornaments without receiving the loan amount and thereby cheated the bank causing a loss to the tune of rs.16.39 lakhs.4. heard both sides and perused the case diary.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has ..3..been falsely implicated in the present case. he further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. the learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application. he contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.6. the law with regard to the grant or refusal ofpre-arrest bail is well settled. pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. the power u/s 438 of cr.p.c could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too,recording reasons thereof. perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. the allegations made against him are very serious in nature and it prima facie show a premeditated criminal act on his part. the investigation is in a preliminary stage. the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for thepurpose of investigation. as rightly argued by the learned ..4.. public prosecutor, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and interfering with.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 10TH VAISAKHA, 1943 Bail Appl..No.3228 OF 2021 CRIME NO.119/2021 OF Valanchery Police Station , Malappuram PETITIONER: SREEJITH AGED 33 YEARS KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, AMAYOOR P.O, PATTAMBI VILLAGE, PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679303 BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VALNCHERY POLICE STATION 676552 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANIL THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ..2.. --------------------------------------

ORDER

This is an application filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 119 of 2021 of Valanchery Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 420, 406 and 409 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner while working as Branch Manager in K.P.B. Nidhi Limited at Valanchery, gave gold loan of Rs.15.2 lakhs to the

second accused and on 11.12.2020, he returned the gold ornaments without receiving the loan amount and thereby cheated the bank causing a loss to the tune of Rs.16.39 lakhs.

4. Heard both sides and perused the case diary.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has ..3..

been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. He contended that the alleged incident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of the petitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, it would affect the course of investigation.

6. The law with regard to the grant or refusal of

pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercised only when a special case is made out, that too,

recording reasons thereof. Perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation made against the petitioner is well founded. The allegations made against him are very serious in nature and it prima facie show a premeditated criminal act on his part. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the

purpose of investigation. As rightly argued by the learned ..4.. Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence and stage of investigation, I feel that it is not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The application is only to be dismissed. In the result, the bail application is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE ds 30.04.2021

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial