JithIn Chandra Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1102146
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-02-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
AppellantJithIn Chandra
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice thomas p.joseph thursday, the2d day of january201412th pousha, 1935 bail appl..no. 16 of 2014 () ----------------------------- crime no. 2676/2013 of angamali police station , ernakulam accused2to5petitioners: --------------------------- 1. jithin chandra aged23years s/o.a a chandran, athikkappilly house, azhakam kara karukutty, ernakulam dist2 ajith urumeese aged25years s/o.urumeese, chakkichery house, pallikkara angamaly, ernakulam dist3 jismon thomas aged22years s/o.thomas, chittoppramban house, pala junction mookkannoor, ernakulam dist4 sarath chandran aged24years p k chandran, peruthumkudy house, azhakam kara mookkannoor, ernakulam dist by advs.sri.v.rajendran (perumbavoor) sri.george varghese kizhakkambalam complainant(s)/respondents/state: --------------------------------- 1. state of kerala rep by public prosecutor, high court of kerala ernakulam-682031 2. sub inspector of police, angamaly police station angamaly po-, 683572 by public prosecutor: adv.rajesh vijayan this bail application having come up for admission on0201-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: thomas p.joseph, j.========================= b.a.no.16 of 2014 ============================ dated this the 02nd day of january, 2014 order petitioners are accused nos.2 to 5, in crime no. 2676 of 2013 of the angamaly police station for the offences punishable under secs.120b and 420 r/w sec.34 of the indian penal code and sec.66 (a) and 66(c) of the it act, are in custody from 16.11.2013, their earlier application for bail was dismissed on 18.12.2013 and again seek bail.2. learned public prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners and the first accused misused the mobile banking system of the state bank of india, withdrew `70,43,164/- from that bank through the account of petitioners and the 6th accused and transferred that amount to the account of the first accused. the first accused was granted bail by the learned sessions judge, ernakulam as per order dated 31.12.2013.3. learned counsel submits that since the main accused is released on bail, further detention of the petitioners is not required.4. having heard the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner, i am inclined to think that the petitioners could be released on bail but subject to stringent b.a.no.16 of 2014 2 conditions so that investigation is not affected and the petitioners do not indulge in similar offence in future. resultantly this application is allowed as under: (i) petitioners are granted bail in crime no.2676 of 2013 of the kollam east police station and will be released, if not required to be detained otherwise on their executing bond for `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) one of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the petitioners. (b) petitioners shall surrender their passports before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond and in case they have none, file affidavit to that effect. (c) petitioners shall report to the officer investigating crime no.2676 of 2013 of the angamaly police station on every monday and saturday between 10a.m and 12 p.m for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. (d) petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation. (e) petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. b.a.no.16 of 2014 3 (f) petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (g) petitioners shall co-operate with investigation of the case. (h) petitioners shall produce all the relevant documents in their custody, control and possession as required by the investigating officer. (i) in case the petitioner violates any of condition nos.(c) to (h), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in p.k shaji vs. state of kerala (air2006sc100. (j) in case passports surrendered are required by the petitioners for any reason, they can move the learned magistrate for appropriate orders stating reasons. sd/- thomas p.joseph, judge. sbna true copy p a to judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE2D DAY OF JANUARY201412TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 16 of 2014 () ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 2676/2013 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM ACCUSED2TO5PETITIONERS: --------------------------- 1. JITHIN CHANDRA AGED23YEARS S/O.A A CHANDRAN, ATHIKKAPPILLY HOUSE, AZHAKAM KARA KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DIST2 AJITH URUMEESE AGED25YEARS S/O.URUMEESE, CHAKKICHERY HOUSE, PALLIKKARA ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DIST3 JISMON THOMAS AGED22YEARS S/O.THOMAS, CHITTOPPRAMBAN HOUSE, PALA JUNCTION MOOKKANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST4 SARATH CHANDRAN AGED24YEARS P K CHANDRAN, PERUTHUMKUDY HOUSE, AZHAKAM KARA MOOKKANNOOR, ERNAKULAM DIST BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM COMPLAINANT(S)/RESPONDENTS/STATE: --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION ANGAMALY PO-, 683572 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: ADV.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0201-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

========================= B.A.No.16 of 2014 ============================ Dated this the 02nd day of January, 2014 ORDER

Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5, in Crime No. 2676 of 2013 of the Angamaly Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs.120B and 420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.66 (A) and 66(C) of the IT Act, are in custody from 16.11.2013, their earlier application for bail was dismissed on 18.12.2013 and again seek bail.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners and the first accused misused the mobile banking system of the State Bank of India, withdrew `70,43,164/- from that bank through the account of petitioners and the 6th accused and transferred that amount to the account of the first accused. The first accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam as per order dated 31.12.2013.

3. Learned counsel submits that since the main accused is released on bail, further detention of the petitioners is not required.

4. Having heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to think that the petitioners could be released on bail but subject to stringent B.A.No.16 of 2014 2 conditions so that investigation is not affected and the petitioners do not indulge in similar offence in future. Resultantly this application is allowed as under: (i) Petitioners are granted bail in Crime No.2676 of 2013 of the Kollam East Police Station and will be released, if not required to be detained otherwise on their executing bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of any of the petitioners. (b) Petitioners shall surrender their passports before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond and in case they have none, file affidavit to that effect. (c) Petitioners shall report to the Officer investigating Crime No.2676 of 2013 of the Angamaly Police Station on every Monday and Saturday between 10a.m and 12 p.m for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. (d) Petitioners shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation. (e) Petitioners shall not get involved in any offence during the period of this bail. B.A.No.16 of 2014 3 (f) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (g) Petitioners shall co-operate with investigation of the case. (h) Petitioners shall produce all the relevant documents in their custody, control and possession as required by the investigating officer. (i) In case the petitioner violates any of condition Nos.(c) to (h), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR2006SC100. (j) In case passports surrendered are required by the petitioners for any reason, they can move the learned magistrate for appropriate orders stating reasons. Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. Sbna True Copy P A to Judge