Allowed

M.S.Sathar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2018Bail Appl./1320/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala allowed the application in a case involving alleged cheating via vehicle dealings and subsequent cheque dishonour, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary and granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted. Petitioner to appear for interrogation. Released on bail with bond Rs.40,000 and sureties Rs.40,000 each.

M.S.Sathar Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1320 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 4173/2017 OF KARUNAAGAPALLY POLICE STATION , KOLLAM ---------------------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED

¶8

M.S.SATHAR AGED 45, S/O. MUHAMMED SALI, RISANA MANZIL PADA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SRI.G.MURALEEDHARAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU.S

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶16

B.A No.1320 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.4173 of 2017 of Karunagappally Police Station, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

¶21

3.The petitioner herein and the de facto complainant are the vehicle brokers. On 27.06.2014, 6 vehicles were transferred by the petitioner herein to the de facto complainant. However, against the terms of the agreement between the parties, the petitioner failed to remit the outstanding tax and failed to hand over the papers and caused a total loss of Rs. 12 lakhs.

¶22

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations are without basis. It is submitted that proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been initiated against the petitioner by the informant

¶23

B.A No.1320 of 2018

¶24

¶25

consequent to dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioner for discharge of the liability. At any rate, as the dispute is essentially civil in nature, it is prayed that he be spared from the rigors of the custodial interrogation.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor was also heard and I have gone through the materials and records. It is not reported that the petitioner is a person with criminal antecedents.

¶27

6.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the petitioner and other facts and circumstances, it does not appear to me that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessitous for an effective investigation.

¶28

7.In the result, this application will stand allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the folowing conditions:

¶29

B.A No.1320 of 2018

¶30

¶31

i)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶32

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.

¶33

iii)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶34

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶36

AD //True Copy\

¶37

P.A to Judge

M.S.Sathar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.S.Sathar 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

Vinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Mujeeb Rehman Vs State of Kerala

O.J.Poulose` Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ismail E.R Vs State