Allowed

Mr. Prafullanraged v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jan 2018Bail Appl./247/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a bail petition under Section 438 CrPC against offences under the IPC. The court held the primarily civil dispute regarding construction quality did not warrant custodial interrogation and granted pre-arrest bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to conditions including appearance before investigating officer, execution of bond with sureties, and compliance with standard bail conditions.

Mr. Prafullanraged Vs the State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 5TH MAGHA, 1939

¶4

Bail Appl..No. 247 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO.2692/2017 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶7

MR. PRAFULLAN R., AGED58 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, S/O RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT SURAHNI, THODIYIL VEEDU, ASHTAMUDY, THRIKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE, THATTARAKONAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶10

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶15

B.A.No.247 of 2018

¶16

Dated this the 25^th day of January, 2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.2692 of 2017 of the Kilikolloor Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 418, 294(b), 506(i) and 354 of the IPC.

¶20

3.The petitioner is a building contractor. He entered into an agreement with the informant for construction of a residential house. As per the terms of the arrangement, which is borne out from Annexure-A1 agreement, the proposed building had an area of 1043 sq.ft and the petitioner had undertaken to complete the construction for a total cost of Rs.17,20,950/-. It appears that disputes occurred between the petitioner herein and the informant with regard to the quality of construction. According to the de facto complainant, though

¶21

B.A.No.247 of 2018 2

¶22

the petitioner herein had received a sum of Rs.9,50,000/from the de facto complainant, the construction carried out was only for a sum of Rs.6,75,490/-. She sustained a loss to the tune of Rs.2,74,510/-. It is further alleged that, on 20.10.2017 at 2 p.m., the petitioner herein trespassed into the office of the de facto complainant and allegedly abused her.

¶23

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute which is purely civil in nature has given the cloak of a criminal offence in disguise. According to the learned counsel, the allegation that the petitioner herein had outraged the modesty of the victim on 20.10.2017 will be falsified by Annexure-A3 reply notice which is dated 13.11.2017.

¶24

5.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary. The question whether the construction was carried out in terms of the agreement between the parties or otherwise cannot be adjudicated by the police. Insofar as the offence under Section 354 of the IPC is concerned, as rightly submitted by the learned

¶25

B.A.No.247 of 2018 3

¶26

counsel, Annexure A3 would throw some doubt with regard to the veracity of the same.

¶27

6.Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it does not appear to me that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted in the instant case. I am inclined to grant an order of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶28

7.In the result, this petition is allowed. However, it shall be subject to the following conditions.

¶29

i).The petitioner shall appear before the investigating 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.

¶30

ii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed.

¶31

iii)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.

¶32

iv)The petitioner shall not leave the Country without the previous permission of the court having jurisdiction.

¶33

B.A.No.247 of 2018 4

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶38

//True Copy\

¶39

P.A to Judge

¶40

IAP

Mr. Prafullanraged v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Prafullanraged v. the 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

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Jayachandran Vs State of Kerala

Kumaran K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shafi Vs State of Kerala

Saidalavi Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Vs Sub Inspector of Police