High Court Kerala High Court

Sohal Banavath vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sohal Banavath vs State Of Kerala on 27 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 3217 of 2010()


1. SOHAL BANAVATH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. CRIMBRANCH C.I.C.ECONOMIC OFFENCE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.BABU KUMAR

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN

 Dated :27/08/2010

 O R D E R

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.

———————-

Crl.M.C.Nos.3217, 3292 & 3498 OF 2010

—————————

Dated this the 27th day of August, 2010

C O M M O N O R D E R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The petitioner, as per the pleadings in the petition, is

involved in three crimes namely, Crime Nos.647/2009, 115/2010

and 117/2010 of the Piravam and Kuravilangadu Police Stations

for the offences punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C.

While allowing the application for bail, the Magistrate

concerned directed the petitioner to furnish sureties who are

having landed properties within the State of Kerala among

other conditions. Feeling aggrieved by the above condition, this

petition was filed with a prayer to delete the condition that the

sureties shall have landed properties in Kerala.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

petitioner, who hails from Maharashtra is altogether involved in

twelve cases of similar nature and in the event he is released on

liberal conditions there is every likelihood of he absconding and

thereby investigation itself would be interrupted. He strongly

objected these petitions.

Crl.M.C.Nos.3217/2010 etc. 2

3. Upon hearing either side, I find merit in the

submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor. Having due

regard to the nature of the offences in which the petitioner was

involved and the petitioner is belonging to the State of

Maharashtra, I find that the condition imposed is quite

appropriate. I find no reason to interfere with the order

impugned. Therefore, all these petitions are dismissed. The

investigating officer is directed to speed up the investigation and

file the charge sheet within two months.

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

ps