Allowed

Ani S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2013Bail Appl./8555/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, the first accused, alleging offences under Sections 143, 147, 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC and 120B relating to a fraudulent sale deed. Bail granted subject to surrender, bond, sureties, and conditional restrictions on leaving Kerala.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail granted subject to surrender before Investigating Officer, execution of a bond of Rs.10,000 with two solvent sureties, and compliance with specific conditions including

Ani S Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/18TH POUSHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8555 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.491/2012 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

ANI.S, AGED 40 YEARS,S/O.GOVINDAN, SARASWATHY BHAVAN, NEAR T. B JUNCTION, POOVAR DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE, NEYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN SRI.SAJUNAM.N.C.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. SADANANDAN,AGED 70 YEARS,

¶14

S/O.VELAYUDHAN,SREE NIVAS, NEAR HOSPITAL JUNCTION,

¶15

POOVAR DESOM, THIRUPURAM VILLAGE,

¶16

NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 525

¶17

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA.T.Y

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SMT.R.BINDU SRI.K.PRIYAKUMAR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

P.BHAVADASAN, J.

¶22

---------------------------------------------------BA No.8555 of 2012

¶23

Dated this the 8^th day of January 2013

¶24

Order

¶25

The petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No.491/12 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station and who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Ss.143, 147, 420, 465, 468, 471 and S.120B IPC along with four other persons, is before this court, seeking pre-arrest bail. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are as follows :

¶26

The second respondent, a retired employee, was

¶27

a close friend of the petitioner. The second respondent confided to the petitioner that he wishes to execute a gift deed in favour of his son and the petitioner agreed to make all necessary arrangements for the same, including drawing up of the documents. He did get a document executed. The allegation against the petitioner is that by misrepresentation, he obtained another document also executed, which, in fact, was a sale deed in his favour. The defacto complainant had no intention to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner and it was a fraudulent one. On the basis of these allegations, a

¶28

BA 8555/12 2

¶29

complaint was laid, which was forwarded for investigation under S.156(3) of Cr.PC. and a crime was registered.

¶30

The petitioner, on the other hand, would say that

¶31

Annexure A1 produced along with the bail application, is a sale deed executed by the second respondent in his favour and there was no fraud played by him. He would say that from the extent of property so purchased by him as per Annexure A1, he had sold as per Annexures A3 and A5, portions of the property to two persons and they have all mutated the property. The petitioner would point out that the second respondent does not dispute the signature on the document. The second respondent - defacto complainant says that the signature was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud, which the petitioner denies. It is seen that a civil suit is pending between the parties. There have been other proceedings also.

¶32

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the second respondent, it appears that there may be some substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has specifically

¶33

BA 8555/12

¶34

¶35

averred that after purchasing the property, he has levelled the property and has made improvements therein. Whether that is true or not, is a matter for the investigating agency to decide. It is too early to probe into the allegations raised against the petitioner. However, considering the nature of allegations, the manner in which the offences are alleged to have been committed, and since the petitioner has expressed his willingness and readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by this court and also to co-operate with the investigation, it is felt that this is a fit case warranting exercise of the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court under S.438 of Cr.PC. The application is accordingly allowed as follows :

¶36

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 16.01.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce him before the JFCM concerned.

¶37

On an application being filed by the petitioner before the JFCM concerned, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the JFCM concerned.

¶38

BA 8555/12

¶39

¶40

The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties before granting bail to the petitioner.

¶41

The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer as and when required by the said Officer and he shall also appear before the Investigating Officer on every Friday between 9 am and 10 am, until further orders.

¶42

The petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence and influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶43

The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without getting prior permission from the JFCM concerned.

¶44

If any of the conditions is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such steps as are available to him in law.

¶45

P.Bhavadasan, Judge

¶46

sta

¶47

BA 8555/12 5

¶48

BA 8555/12 6

Ani S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ani S 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

Afsal V.K. Vs the Station House Officer

Umadath a. Vs State of Kerala

Gandheevan @ Arun Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Gireesh Vs State of Kerala

Vinosh Vs State of Kerala