High CourtsSingle Bench

Sunilkumar vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 17 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 KL CK 0155

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 201, 409</liPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(d), 13(2)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1218 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

24 paragraphs · 495 words

Sunil Thomas, J

1.

The petitioner herein stands arrayed as the third accused in Crime No.VC.8/2007/SIU of the VACB, Special Investigation Unit-I,

Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under

Sections 409, 201 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, final report was filed. Cognizance was taken and process was issued to the

accused 1 to 3. Since the presence of the petitioner could not be ensured, in spite of repeated process, proceedings were taken to consign the file to

the LP register and it is now pending as LP.No.39/2017 of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.

2.

The petitioner has approached this court seeking bail. The explanation offered by the petitioner is that, he closed down his business and shifted to

Nelloor, near Andra-Tamil Nadu border in 2005. He was not aware of the investigation and the filing of the final report. He was not aware of the

proceedings. On coming to know about the case recently the petitioner has approached this court. He offered to appear before the court below and to

participate in all future proceedings. He undertakes to appear before the court below regularly, either personally or through counsel. The apprehension

of the petitioner is that, since the matter is consigned to the LP register, if he appears before the trial court, he is likely to be arrested.

3.

The apprehension is regarding the execution of the warrant issued by the court below. Since warrant is issued for non appearance in judicial

proceedings a bail application is not sustainable. However, having regard to the entire facts and having taken note of the specific undertaking given by

the petitioner that he shall co-operate with the trial in future and appear before the court below, either personally or through counsel, I am inclined to

dispose of the bail application with the following directions:

1.

The petitioner shall appear before the court below or the court in charge at present, within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of this

order.

2.

He shall also deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) before the court below as costs for causing delay in judicial proceedings

within the above period of 15 days. He shall file appropriate bail application and application to recall warrant and offer sureties. On such applications

being filed along with the receipt of deposit of the amount, the court below shall take up the bail application and consider the bail application on the

date of appearance itself, having regard to the facts mentioned above and also the undertaking given by the petitioner to appear and continue to appear

on all posing dates. The court below shall consider the bail application and pass such orders on the same day itself. Petitioner shall also furnish to court

his present address, telephone number, the contact details and email.

Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of.