Allowed

Shajith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Feb 2016Bail Appl./435/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the accused in a cheating case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted, emphasizing that the genuineness of the transaction is a question of evidence, though bail was granted subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioner released on bail upon executing bond and sureties, subject to specified conditions.

Shajith Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/23RD MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 435 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1373/2015 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶7

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAJITH, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O. SAID MUHAMMED, SAID WEST, SAVAD NAGAR, MOOCHIKKAD, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL).

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU GOPINATH.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶16

B.A.No.435 of 2016

¶17

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under S.438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶20

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime

¶21

No.1373/2015 of Alathur police station. The said crime has

¶22

been registered for offence punishable under S.406, 420 of

¶23

the IPC.

¶24

The gist of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner had collected a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the de facto complainant during January 2015 after assuring him that a job visa would be arranged. Later, the petitioner is

¶25

alleged to have resiled from his promise.

¶26

B.A.No.435 of 2016 : 2 :

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is borne out from the complaint itself that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are family friends. According to the learned counsel even assuming the allegations are true, it is purely a civil transaction which has been given a cloak of a criminal offence in disguise.

¶29

The learned public prosecutor submitted the submissions that the transaction is purely civil in nature cannot be accepted. There are materials to show guilty intent.

¶30

After having heard the rival submissions, it appears that the question whether the de facto complainant was fraudulently induced or otherwise can only be be established at the stage of evidence. In the facts and circumstance of the case, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. The interest of

¶31

B.A.No.435 of 2016 : 3 :

¶32

the prosecution can also be safeguarded by imposing

¶33

appropriate conditions.

¶34

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i). The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum if he is arrested by the Police in connection with this case.

¶36

ii). The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶37

iii). The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶38

iv). The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶39

v). The petitioner shall not commit any

¶40

B.A.No.435 of 2016 : 4 :

¶41

similar offence while on bail. vi). In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional magistrate shall be empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with law.

¶42

This application is allowed as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE.

¶45

¶46

[True copy]

¶47

P.A to Judge

Shajith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajith 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

Arunkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Mohandas Vs the State of Kerala

Ajeesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Riyas Vs the State of Kerala

Srejith Vs State of Kerala

Sreelal @ Lal Vs State of Kerala