The court refused pre-arrest bail pending investigation into a cashew import contract dispute. The judge directed surrender for interrogation to determine if the breach has criminal implications before a magistrate decides on bail.
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.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938
Bail Appl..No. 3658 of 2016 () ---------------------------CRIME NO.1476/2016 OF EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM.
PETITIONER:
VINOD VARGHESE, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, PLACKAL HOUSE, KORATTY SOUTH PO, THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT ANNANAD, P.O. KADUKUTTY, THRISSUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.P.JINISH PAUL
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REMA.R.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-08-2016 ALONG WITH BA.3924/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
P.UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------B.A Nos.3658 & 3924 of 2016
--------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2016
O R D E R
The petitioner in B.A No.3658/2016 is the first accused in Crime No.1476/2016 of the Kollam East Police Station, and the petitioner in B. A No.3924/2016 is the second accused therein, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal code. The two petitioners seek pre arrest bail on the apprehension of arrest by the police.
2
B.A Nos.3658 & 3924 of 2016
Sections 120B, 409, 465 and 468 IPC were incorporated by the police. It appears that the forgery alleged in this case is regarding a bill of lading. The police report shows that the said bill of lading is yet to be seized. If so, it is not known how those sections regarding forgery happened to be incorporated without seeing the original bill of lading. As regards the second accused, the learned counsel submitted that there is absolutely no allegation against him in the complaint. On an examination of the complaint, I find that it does not contain any definite allegation against the second accused, regarding cheating or forgery. Of course the complaint does not contain anything regarding the alleged forgery now found out or detected by the police without the aid of any definite material. In the nature of the allegations I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer for necessary interrogation. Their interrogation for the collection of some materials concerning the exact nature of the alleged transaction, whether the said transaction will have only civil consequences, or whether it involves any element of cheating as alleged in the complainant, the exact nature and purport of the complaint made by the complainant in this case, as to whether the object is only
B.A Nos.3658 & 3924 of 2016 3
to extract money, or to initiate an honest prosecution, etc; is felt necessary. It appears that so far the complainant has not initiated any civil action for the recovery of the money allegedly due from the first petitioner. On a consideration of all the aspects discussed above, as to whether the alleged breach of contract will have any criminal consequences, let appropriate decision on the request for bail be taken by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. If detention of the petitioners in custody is felt not necessary after collection of the required materials, they can be granted bail on appropriate conditions, including security deposit.
In the result, these applications for bail is disposed of as follows:
a) The petitioners will surrender before the investigating officer between 9 am and 10 am on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.
b) After necessary interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioners before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.
4
B.A Nos.3658 & 3924 of 2016
c) In case application for regular bail is
filed by the petitioners, the same shall be judiciously considered and decided by the learned Magistrate on the
same day.
Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE
//True Copy//
P.A to Judge
ab
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted without determining the criminal nature of the alleged civil dispute.
Whether the allegations constitute cheating and forgery under the Indian Penal Code.
VINOD VARGHESE
STATE OF KERALA
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
