Allowed

Saleesh.K.Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2016Bail Appl./8479/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed bail to accused persons charged with cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court held that the dispute arose from a breach of contract regarding supply quality, making custodial interrogation unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Bail to petitioners granted subject to conditions of appearing before Investigating Officer, executing bond, providing sureties, and not interfering with witnesses.

Saleesh.K.Satheesh Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/15TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8479 of 2015 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 1174/2015 OF PATTAMBI POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. SALEESH.K.SATHEESH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O SATHEESH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PRROPYL PACKS LIMITED, PARADISO, 841/M-1, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682 026

¶9

2. MAHESH KUMAR.C., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O K.G.P. MENON, ASSISTANT MANAGER (MARKETING), PRROPYL PACKS LIMITED., PARADISO, 841/M-1, ELAMAKKARA, KOCHI-682 026

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, RERPESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶17

B.A.No.8479 of 2015

¶18

Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2016

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners stand indicted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. They are the Executive Director and Assistant Manager of a packing company.

¶21

According to the de facto complainant, he had been purchasing the materials from the Company since 2009. A supply of 1036 kgs of materials recently supplied by the Company of the petitioners herein were found to be of inferior quality and did not satisfy the requirement of the de facto complainant. According to him, the sum of Rs.2,50,877/- was paid to the Company and they supplied materials of inferior quality with an intention to commit cheating.

¶22

Heard both sides and examined the records.

¶23

Essentially, the transaction between the

¶24

parties is not seen disputed. The question whether the

¶25

B.A.No.8479 of 2015 2

¶26

supply of goods made was of an inferior quality than that agreed upon is a matter which depends the terms of the contract, either written or oral. The question whether there was an intention to commit cheating is a matter matter arising therefrom. Essentially, it appears to be one relating to breach of a contract and question whether an offence under Section 420 arise is to be established by the complainant at the time of evidence.

¶27

Hence, I do not feel that a custodial interrogation of the accused is warranted. Hence, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶28

(a) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall offer themselves for interrogation. At the end of the investigation, the Interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest them, they shall be released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

¶29

B.A.No.8479 of 2015

¶30

¶31

(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.

¶32

(b) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the witnesses and shall also not interfere with the course of investigation.

¶33

¶34

Officer as and when called.

¶35

The bail application is allowed.

¶36

Sd/- SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶37

//TRUE COPY//

¶38

P.A. TO JUDGE

¶39

AD/5/1/16

Saleesh.K.Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleesh.K.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

Mayandi Vs State of Kerala

Sujith Vs State of Kerala

B.Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Vs State of Kerala

T.Suhail Vs State of Kerala

Praveen.N Vs State of Kerala