Sajan Vs. State of Kerala

Sajan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 18, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/909987

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/909987
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: V. Ramkumar, J.
Decided On: Nov 18, 2010
Case Number: Bail Application No.6868 of 2010
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

[] This W.Ps are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to call for records from the respondents and strike down rule 10(1)(11) & (IV) read with schedule IV (4) of the lease cum-sale agreement appended to the Karnataka agricultural produce marketing (regulation of allotment of property...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 489B, C

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sajan

Advocate SRI.S.RAJEEV, Adv.

Respondent

State of Kerala

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 489B, C

Excerpt

[] this w.ps are filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to call for records from the respondents and strike down rule 10(1)(11) & (iv) read with schedule iv (4) of the lease cum-sale agreement appended to the karnataka agricultural produce marketing (regulation of allotment of property in market yards) rule 2004. as irrational. in applicable, arbitrary and opposed to the karnataka agricultural produce marketing' (regulation) act. 1966 so far petitioners are concerned and quash the forfeiture orders dated 25.08.2010 & 17.07.2010 annexure a-1. a-2 & a-3, issued by the third respondent. so far as the petitioners are concerned......about the alleged purchase of fake notes by a5 from a3. 4. the case diary files which were perused by me shows that a3 had taken from one suku fake notes for `50,000/- and had given the same to a5 of ayoor in his shop on a5 paying him `25,000/-. 5. a remand report need not contain each and every material revealed by the investigation and therefore, failure, if any, to mention the above circumstance in the remand report cannot exculpate the petitioner whose complicity in the matter is revealed by the case diary files. at the time of his arrest he was in possession of three out of the several fake notes purchased by him from a3. 6. having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the threat to the economic stability of the state, the propensities of the petitioner, the inter-state ramifications of the racket and the other facts and circumstances of the case, i am of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. there is also the likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce and fleeing from justice. i am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 7. this petition is accordingly dismissed.

Full Judgment

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

Bail Application No.6868 of 2010

Dated: 18.11.2010

ORDER

1. Petitioner, who is the 5th accused in Crime No.375/2010 of Nedumkandam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 489B and C IPC, seeks his enlargement on bail. The petitioner was arrested on 3.9.2010.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application contending, inter alia, that A1 and A4 had gone to Huzoor in Karnataka State and had procured fake currency notes for `3 lakhs by paying `1 lakh in genuine currency and the petitioner had purchased fake notes for `50,000/- by paying `25,000/- to A3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who was an innocent possessor of fake notes had, on coming to know that they are fake notes, destroyed the same and that none of the five remand reports mentions about the alleged purchase of fake notes by A5 from A3.

4. The case diary files which were perused by me shows that A3 had taken from one Suku fake notes for `50,000/- and had given the same to A5 of Ayoor in his shop on A5 paying him `25,000/-.

5. A remand report need not contain each and every material revealed by the investigation and therefore, failure, if any, to mention the above circumstance in the remand report cannot exculpate the petitioner whose complicity in the matter is revealed by the case diary files. At the time of his arrest he was in possession of three out of the several fake notes purchased by him from A3.

6. Having regard to the gravity of the offences, nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the relative conduct of the parties, the threat to the economic stability of the State, the propensities of the petitioner, the inter-State ramifications of the racket and the other facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, he will definitely influence and intimidate the prosecution witnesses. There is also the likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce and fleeing from justice. I am, therefore, not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. This petition is accordingly dismissed.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties Sajan vs State of Kerala Same Subject Criminal Same Judge V. Ramkumar, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 489B, C

Criminal