Allowed

Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Aug 2016Bail Appl./5669/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused charged with cheque dishonour and cheating. The court held that the disputes appear mainly civil in nature, justifying the order under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Ordered release of petitioners on bail in the event of arrest, subject to executing a bond of Rs.30,000 each with sureties and complying with reporting conditions.

Satheesh 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938 Bail Appl..No. 5669 of 2016 ()

¶5

CRIME NO. 751/2016 OF NARAKKAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶7

SATHEESH

¶8

S/O. GOPI, AGED 38 YEARS, MANGATTU HOUSE, KULAKKAD, YAMUNA NAGAR, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689 101.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.SHYAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINAT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL POLICE STATIONERNAKULAM DISTRICT-CRIME NO. 751/2016) REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.ALEX M THOMBRA

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-082016, ALONG WITH BA 5670/2016. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶16

- - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Bail Application Nos.5669 and 5670 of 2016

¶17

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of August 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner in B.A.No.5670 of 2016 is the first accused and the petitioner in B.A. No.5669 of 2016 is the second accused in Crime No.751 of 2016 of Njarakkal police station registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

¶20

The allegation of the prosecution can be briefly

¶21

stated thus:- The first accused received an amount of Rs.2,91,000/- from the de-facto complainant during the

¶22

period from 11.1.2013 to 6.3.2015 on the promise that the said amount would be deposited in his Super market and

¶23

BA 5669 & 5670/2016 : 2 :

¶24

the profits would be given. Thereafter, during the period from 5.9.2014 to 7.4.2015, the first accused borrowed an amount of 2,50,000/- from the de-facto complainant on the promise that the first accused would transfer his property at Thiruvalla to the de-facto complainant . It is further alleged that during the period from 26.2.2014 to 5.9.2014, the first accused received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the defacto complainant on the promise that a job would be arranged for the de-facto complainant in the S.N.D.P. School. Thereafter, the first accused collected 7 soverigns of gold ornaments from the de-facto complainant stating that the said ornaments were needed for the marriage of the daughter of the younger sister of the mother of the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.10.2015 from the de-facto

¶25

BA 5669 & 5670/2016 : 3 : complainant for purchasing an agricultural property. The first accused also received an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the de-facto complainant for arranging a loan. Thus, the first accused collected a total amount of Rs.11,91,000/- and 7 soverigns of gold ornaments from the de-facto complainant . The money and the said gold ornaments were not returned to the de-facto complainant . On the basis of the above said allegations, a private complaint was filed by the de-facto complainant before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Njarakkal. The learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of the Code. Accordingly, the above crime was registered.

¶26

The petitioners have filed these applications praying for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶27

BA 5669 & 5670/2016 : 4 :

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The petitioners are brother and sister. It has been

¶30

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the husband of the petitioner in B.A. No.5670 of 2015 was not in good terms with the said petitioner in connection with their matrimonial disputes and it was only for that reason that the husband of the above said petitioner instigated the de-facto complainant to file the present complaint before the court. The husband of the above said petitioner and the de-facto complainant are working abroad, submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the nature of allegations raised against the petitioners, it appears that the disputes involved in this case are mainly civil in nature. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 of the Code in favour of the petitioners will be justified in this

¶31

BA 5669 & 5670/2016 : 5 :

¶32

case.

¶33

In the result, these applications stand allowed and the respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.751/2016 of Njarakkal police station, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Sub Inspector of Police, Njarakkal Police Station, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶35

BA 5669 & 5670/2016

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

(ii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶38

(iii) The petitioners shall not get involved in any offence while on bail.

¶39

I make it clear that I have not made any observation regarding the merits of the case and the observation, if any,

¶40

made in this order is only for the purpose of disposing of

¶41

these bail applications.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶44

dl/.23.8.2016

¶45

// True Copy //

¶46

PA to Judge

Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh 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

Vannathan Veettil Cheeyayi Vs Excise Inspector

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Arun Anand Vs State of Kerala

Abdulkareem Vs the State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala

Ajayakumar @ Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala