The court dismissed a bail application. The accused was charged with cheating by obtaining Rs.14.5 lakhs for a property sale while concealing that portions were already sold or mortgaged. The court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail.
Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/18TH JYAISHTA 1934
Bail Appl..No. 2581 of 2012 () -----------------------------(CRIME NO.467/2011 OF KIDANGOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM)
ACCUSED(S)/ACCUSED : -------------------
ANILKUMAR S/O.RAMAN, ARACKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, MARIDAM KARA KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHAL TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN
COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KIDANGOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE V.H.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BKA
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
B.A. No: 2581 of 2012
Dated this the 8th day of June, 2012
O R D E R
The petitioner is the accused in Crime No:467/2011 of Kidangoor Police Station, Kottayam. The offence alleged against him is under section 420 of IPC.
an agreement with the defacto complainant for the sale of his property and had obtained Rs.14,50,000/- towards consideration. It is further alleged that as per the agreement sale was to be executed before 23.10.2011. It was stated that encumbrance certificates in respect of the properties revealed that out of the property agreed to be sold, 15 ares had already been sold by the petitioner to one James in the year 2008 itself. It was a dishonest concealment of fact. It is also alleged that another portion of the property was mortgaged with the bank. That was also suppressed while entering into the agreement. That property was also attached in a suit before the Munsiff
B.A. No: 2581/2012
-2-
Court, Pala. It was suppressing all these material facts the petitioner entered into the agreement, the prosecution contends.
Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A. to Judge
jjj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused alleged of cheating under section 420 of the IPC.
Whether allegations of dishonest concealment of facts negate the necessity of bail.
ANILKUMAR S/O.RAMAN
STATE OF KERALA
N.K. BALAKRISHNAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
