Allowed

Jose Binu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2013Bail Appl./7708/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application for a petitioner accused of cheating. Considering the minor role attributed to him and the absence of serious allegations against other accomplices, the court exercised extraordinary jurisdiction to grant bail subject to strict conditions regarding surrender, sureties, reporting, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on bond of Rs. 15,000 with two sureties for Rs. 15,000 each, subject to surrender by 04.12.2013, weekly reporting, and non-influence of witnesses.

Jose Binu Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. BHAVADASAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl.. No. 7708 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1868/2013 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

JOSE BINU, AGED 39 YEARS S/O. VARKEY, JOSE NIVAS, VAYALAR P.O. CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. K. RAMANATHAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

---------------------------------------

¶17

B.A. No.7708 of 2013

¶18

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2013.

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner initially arrayed as the 3^rd accused, who is now transferred as the 2^nd accused is alleged to have been committed offence punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

The allegation against the petitioner is that he had on the second occasion gone along with two persons, who were promised a job to the defacto complainant on her paying a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs only). Initially, a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs fifty thousand only) was paid to the other two persons and on the 3^rd occasion, it is alleged that, the petitioner was come along with one of them to receive Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). The job was not procured and therefore when the mediation failed for return of the amount, a complaint was filed.

¶22

The petitioner would say that the allegation against him was totally false and without any basis. He had no role to play the incident. It is also pointed out that there are no

¶23

¶24

B.A. No.7708 of 2013

¶25

allegations that he had directly contacted the defacto complainant or he had made any representation indicating that he would be able to procure job for her. All the allegations against him as of now is that he had gone on the 2^nd occasion to receive the balance amount and represented himself as an employer of the Church.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the investigation is at the initial stage and the petitioner had a role to play the incident.

¶27

After having the heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and also after having perused the records, there seems to be considerable force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

It is seen that even though the role of the petitioner is that very minor, he is made the 2^nd accused and the person who is attributed with specific allegations, which seems to have been removed from the party array of the accused. It is indeed strange. Whatever that be so, the only allegation as of now against the petitioner is that he had gone along with one Gopinathan who received the balance sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶29

¶30

B.A. No.7708 of 2013

¶31

(Rupees Two lakhs fifty thousand only) and he is alleged to have been represented that he is the 'Kappiar' of the Church. There is no allegation against him either induced the victim the part with money or that he had in any way made her believe that he would get a job for her. Taking a totality of the circumstances and consideration, mainly the allegation against the petitioner and also the fact that the person, against whom there are serious allegation, is not shown as the accused, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner.

¶32

Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶33

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 04.12.2013 who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the Court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

¶34

¶35

B.A. No.7708 of 2013

¶36

ii) The Court concerned shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by them.

¶37

iii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m and 10 a.m until further orders.

¶38

iv) The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶39

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the Court concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to it in law.

¶40

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶41

Jose Binu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Binu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sajeer V.P. Vs the State of Kerala

Sanalkumar S Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer Vs State of Kerala