Allowed

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Oct 2008Bail Appl./5137/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was charged with sections 420, 422, and 424 IPC related to a dispute involving a car, hire purchase instalments, and a disputed seizure of a vehicle. The court imposed conditions for surrender and deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail conditionally: surrender within seven days, execute bail bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties, and deposit Rs. 20,000/- towards hire purchase instalments.

Shaji Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5137 of 2008() ----------------------------CRIME NO.258/2008 OF ANTHIKAD POLICE STATION PETITIONER -----------------------------SHAJI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. DAMODHARAN, CHOZHIYATTIL THIYYATH HOUSE, P.O. AYIROOR, PUTHENPALLY DESOM, PERUMPADAPPA VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶2

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU

¶3

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶4

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

¶5

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶6

K.HEMA, J.

¶7

B.A.No.5137 of 2008

¶8

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2008

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶11

The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 422 and 424 IPC. According to prosecution, de facto complainant sold a car to the petitioner and petitioner advanced an amount of Rs.30,000/-, but, the balance amount was not paid and from 24.9.2007 onwards, the car is in possession of the petitioner. Thereafter, the car was seized by the Excise Officials from Tamil Nadu on the allegation that sandal wood was found in the car. The car was put on auction and on receiving notice, defacto complainant purchased the vehicle in auction.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased a car from the de facto complainant and he had intended to pay the balance amount also. But, in the meantime, he had given the car on rent to another person (he is running a rent-a-car business). But, the person, who took the car on rent, did not return the car. Therefore, he filed a complaint

¶13

BA No.5137/08

¶14

¶15

before the police and a crime was also registered in connection with missing of the car. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that petitioner has no intention to cheat. He is prepared to deposit the hire purchase instalments which he is liable to pay which his alleged to be in default. Petitioner is innocent of the allegations made and he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

¶16

Learned public prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was interrogated as per direction of this Court during pendency of this petition and he has no objection in granting anticipatory bail. But, it was pointed out that the de facto complainant sustained a huge amount. Hire purchase instalments were not paid by the petitioner.

¶17

Hence, on consideration of the contentions the following order is passed:

¶18

Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate on

¶19

BA No.5137/08

¶20

¶21

the following conditions:

¶22

(i) Petitioner shall produce before the Magistrate Court concerned, a fixed deposit receipt for an amount of Rs.20,000/- in the name of the de facto complainant towards the hire purchase instalments, which the petitioner was liable to pay.

¶23

(ii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when directed. (iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶24

(iv) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence.

¶25

The petition is allowed.

¶26

K.HEMA, JUDGE

¶27

csl

¶28

BA No.5137/08 4

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivadas Vs State of Kerala

Chandra Bose Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chandra Bose Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Dinesan Vs State of Kerala

K.Sivanarayanan Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Abraham Vs State of Kerala