Allowed

Jayaprasad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2018Bail Appl./2133/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating and B.I.P. case, the court found a civil flavour to the dispute despite the police charge. The court held custodial interrogation not warranted and granted bail with conditions to appear for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner to appear for interrogation; bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties.

Jayaprasad 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 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2133 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 881/2018 OF CHERTHALA POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1

¶8

JAYAPRASAD AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. PALANI, THOTTUNKAL, MUHAMMA P.O, CHERTHALA.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.B.PRAMOD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

SPV

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶16

B.A No. 2133 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No. 881 of 2018 of the Cherthala Police Station, registered under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

For sale of an item of immovable property, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the de facto complainant. Substantial sums of money was also received by way of advance. According to the informant, the petitioner went back on his word and failed to convey the property in terms of the agreement. He also refused to repay the advance amount. This led to the filing of the complaint based on which the crime was registered.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his part of the promise and execute the sale deed. It was the de facto complainant who had reneged from the promise. The learned counsel referred to the legal notice dated 4.3.2017 issued by the petitioner,

¶23

B.A No.2133/2018 2

¶24

through his counsel, calling upon the de facto complainant to come forward with the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed. The learned counsel also referred to Annexure-IV judgement in WP(C) No. 15440/ 2017 and the order in B.A. No 7509 / 2017 to explain the sequence of events and contended that a purely civil transaction has been given the cloak of a criminal offence in disguise.

¶25

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor who submitted that the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner as well as the co-accused would reveal that their intention was to defraud the de facto complainant.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record. It appears that an agreement was executed on 20.4.2017 which was duly extended from time to time. Substantial amounts have also changed hands. It appears from Annexure-II that the petitioner herein had issued notice to the de facto complainant on 4.3.2017 calling upon him to come forward and get the sale deed executed. The failure of the petitioner to repay the advance has resulted in the

¶27

B.A No.2133/2018

¶28

¶29

lodging of the complaint. Prima facie, the dispute appears to have a civil flavour.

¶30

Having considered all the relevant aspects, it does not appear to me that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein is warranted in the instant case for an effective investigation.

¶31

In the result, this petition 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 by the officer effecting the arrest on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶32

i) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m., for a period of two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶33

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.

¶34

B.A No.2133/2018

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶39

al/-xx

Jayaprasad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprasad 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

Josemon Simon Vs State of Kerala

M.K. Sajeev Vs State of Kerala

Sadanandan Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala

Shafir Vs State of Kerala

Nabeel Baker Assinar Vs the State of Kerala