Partly allowed

Riya Agnus Frank v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2016Crl.MC/4078/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition, the High Court modified onerous conditions imposed on an accused in multiple cheating cases. The impugned order required separate immovable property sureties and different sureties for each of the six cases. The Court set aside these conditions, directing the execution of a bond with two solvent sureties per case instead.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail conditions requiring separate sureties for each of the six cases were set aside; the petitioner is directed to execute a bond with two solvent sureties for the like sum in each case.

Riya Agnus Frank 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

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2016/13TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4078 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRL.MC.NO. 1149/2016 OF SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 256/2016 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

--------------------

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 :

¶9

RIYA AGNUS FRANK, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.C.B FRANK, FRANK VILLA, PIPE LANE ROAD, PALLURUTHY, ERNAKULAM -682 006

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.BIJU JOSEPH SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

CRL.MC.NO.4078/2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEX A1	COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 03/06/2016 IN CRL.MC.NO.1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153 & 1154 OF 2016 OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM.
RESPONDEN	T'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶24

¶25

Crl.M.C. No. 4078 of 2016

¶26

- - - - Dated 4^th July, 2016

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

1.The petitioner is the accused No 1 in Crime Nos.

¶30

256/16 , 338/16, 1064/16, 807/16, 806 /16 and 657/16 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam. She is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

2.The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the petitioner, along with her husband, who is arrayed as 2^nd accused, conducted an establishment by name “Career Consultancy” at Pullepady and they in conjunction and connivance with 3^rd and 4^th accused, induced the de facto complainants in the respective cases to hand over money to them by assuring them that they would arrange Job Visa to Germany. They

¶32

Crl.M.C. No.4078 of 2016 -2-

¶33

later resiled from their promise thus inviting the prosecution proceedings.

¶34

3.The petitioner had submitted separate applications for regular Bail in these cases and the same was allowed as per Annexure 1 common order.

¶35

4.The petitioner herein is aggrieved by condition Nos. 2 and 3 of Annexure 1 order. Condition Nos. 2 and 3 are

¶36

extracted below for easy reference.

¶37

“2.The sureties of the petitioner shall be persons who own immovable property in Ernakulam District and they shall produce the original title deeds of their property along with attested copies to prove their solvency. The original documents shall be returned to them after verification

¶38

The sureties of the petitioner shall not be the same persons in all cases. They shall be different persons in each case.”

¶39

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

¶40

6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶41

submits that condition No.2 and 3 of the impugned

¶42

Crl.M.C. No.4078 of 2016 -3-

¶43

order is onerous and no ordinary person can comply with the same. It is also submitted that this Court as per common order in Crl.M.C.No.4012 of 2016 and connected cases had set aside the conditions imposed on the 2^nd accused.

¶44

7.Condition No.2 of the order requires the petitioner to produce sureties who hold immovable properties in Ernakulam District. Condition No.3 requires that the sureties of the petitioner shall not be the same persons in all cases and they shall be different person in each case. It is pointed out that the petitioner is languishing in jail for more than 80 days as she is unable to comply with the conditions in the bail order. Similar order was pronounced in the cases in which her husband is an accused, is the submission.

¶45

8.I have taken note of the fact that the amount involved in Rs.15 lakhs. I am firmly of the view that the condition imposed directing the petitioner to produce

¶46

Crl.M.C. No.4078 of 2016 -4-

¶47

separate sureties in all these crimes is onerous and incapable of being complied with. As contended by the learned counsel, if the benefit of the order is to be availed by the petitioner and her husband, a minimum of 24 sureties will have to be produced before the court below. This would tantamount in denying bail to the accused.

¶48

9.The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , though wide, has to be exercised sparingly and carefully and also with caution. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the Courts exist

¶49

Having regard to the facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the order impugned in this case which is produced as Annexure A1 is liable to be set aside. In modification, the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs

¶50

Crl.M.C. No.4078 of 2016 -5-

¶51

100,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court in each of the above cases. It is made clear that if the very same sureties are produced by the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall ensure that they are solvent enough to execute the individual Bonds. The sureties shall also produce documents to establish their identity and solvency. The lower court need not insist on the solvency certificate, but may peruse other vital documents to ascertain whether the sureties are solvent or not. All other conditions shall remain as such.

¶52

This petition is disposed off.

¶53

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶54

kp/-4.7.16

Riya Agnus Frank v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riya Agnus Frank 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

Sivalingaiah Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Shybu Vs State of Kerala

Fr. Joseph M. Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Abdul Majeed.K.K

P.Sasi Vs State of Kerala