The Court dismissed bail application of accused alleged to have cheated complainant by selling property she had no interest in. Petitioner claimed coercion; Court noted failure to act against complainant promptly and lack of total innocence justifying bail.
Bail application dismissed; accused directed to surrender before Investigating Officer by 18.10.2013.
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 P.BHAVADASAN
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/16TH ASWINA, 1935
Bail Appl..No. 5576 of 2013 ()
CRIME NO. 343/2013 OF KAZHAKKUTTAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1.:
PRASANNA.S.,AGED 62 YEARS,W/O.SASIDHARAN NAIR, SARASWATHY VILASAM, VENCHAVODE, SREEKARYAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031(CRIME NO.343/2013 OF KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM)
2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582
(CRIME NO.343/2013 OF KAZHAKUTTAM POLICE STATION)
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
Bail Application No.5576 OF 2013
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2013.
O R D E R
The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No.343/2013 of Kazhakuttam Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that from 12.03.2011 onwards, on 15 occasions, she borrowed an amount of Rs.34 lakhs from the de facto complainant and when the money was sought back, since the petitioner was unable to return the amount, she sold her property to the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant applied for mutation of the property, it was revealed that the petitioner did not have any subsisting interest over the property as that had already been settled in favour of her daughter long ago and that led to the filing of the complaint.
act as alleged. According to her, she had borrowed Rs.3 lakhs
B.A. No.5576/2013
2
from the de facto complainant who is a money lender by profession and the de facto complainant insists for exorbitant interest on the amount. The petitioner had already given Rs.4 lakhs back and nothing was due from her. It is further stated that the de facto complainant using her henchmen threatened the petitioner and managed to get the sale deed executed in her favour and on the basis of the same, the present complaint has been filed. The petitioner would say that she has not committed any act which would constitute an offence.
B.A. No.5576/2013
3
be granted pre arrest bail.
B.A. No.5576/2013
4
had executed a sale deed in favour of the de facto complainant at a time when she knew that she had no right over the said property. If, as a matter of fact, the execution of the sale deed was under intimidation, threat or coercion, the petitioner should have taken steps as against the de facto complainant and instead it is seen that the daughter of the petitioner had filed a complaint.
However, if the petitioner is so advised, she may surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 18.10.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce her before the Court concerned who, on an application of bail being moved by the petitioner, shall dispose of the same in accordance with law, preferably on the same day of her production itself.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE
smp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the accused alleged of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Whether the execution of the sale deed knowing no subsisting interest over the property negates total innocence for bail purposes.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prasanna.S.
State of Kerala
P. Bhavadasan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
