Allowed

Santhosh Sivanarayanan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2018Bail Appl./3011/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was filed by the 3rd accused in a criminal case involving cheating and forgery. The Court found that custodial interrogation was not necessitous and allowed the application for anticipatory bail subject to conditions regarding investigation cooperation and non-interference.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; applicant to appear for interrogation within ten days and execute a bond for Rs.40,000/ with two sureties.

Santhosh Sivanarayanan Vs the State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3011 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 317/2018 OF MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION , WAYANAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED

¶8

SANTHOSH SIVA NARAYANAN, S/O. SIVANARAYANAN, AGED 44 YEARS, LEKSHMI BHAVAN, NETTAYAM POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 13.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION - 682 031.

¶12

R BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

AL/-

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶16

B.A No.3011 of 2018

¶17

--------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

2.The applicant herein is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.317 of 2018 of Mananthavady Police Station, registered under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

¶21

3.One Prakash, the 1^st accused in the aforesaid Crime, and his wife had purchased about 5.10 acres of property from one Sreenik Kumar S/o. Veerendra Gowda. They had effected mutation in their favour and were remitting tax. While so, an order was passed by the Tribunal of Land Board, Mananthavady, by which the property was declared as “Micha Bhoomi”. Consequently, there was an interdiction in permitting the owners to remit the tax. In the meanwhile, the 1^st accused and his wife managed to mortgage the said property and secured a loan of Rs.8 lakhs. It is alleged that the applicant herein while working as the SVO, Payyampally, was approached by the 1^st accused and he managed to provide him with tax

¶22

B.A No.3011 of 2018

¶23

¶24

receipt for the year 2015-2016 and received a sum of Rs.35,000/-. Later, when the 1^st accused approached the applicant herein for remitting the tax, the applicant herein is alleged to have introduced the 2^nd accused. The 1^st accused thereafter approached the 2^nd accused and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-. On 20.6.2017, the 2^nd accused is alleged to have issued forged receipts to the 1^st accused. Using the same, he managed to execute an agreement for sale. Later, the prospective purchaser inquired with the Village Officer concerned and it was realised that the tax receipts are forged. Immediately thereafter, the 1^st accused approached the 2^nd accused and demanded back the money. When he failed to pay the amount, a complaint was lodged before the Village Officer concerned. Later, the complaint was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Mananthavady, who in turn, lodged the complaint before the Police.

¶25

4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that

¶26

the applicant is totally innocent. According to the learned counsel, the specific allegation against the applicant is that ignoring the interdiction, he had issued tax receipts for the

¶27

B.A No.3011 of 2018

¶28

¶29

period 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. The allegation of forging tax receipts, thandaper account, possession certificate and encumbrance certificate are against the 2^nd accused. According to the learned counsel, Annexure-A4 receipts obtained by the applicant under the provisions of the Right to Information Act would show that the 1^st accused had been remitting tax regularly with the village office during the respective years. In that view of the matter, the allegation that on a single day the applicant herein had issued tax receipts to the 1^st accused cannot be accepted. Reference is also made to Annexure-A5 to substantiate his point.

¶30

5.Though the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer, he has not been able to convince this Court as to how Annexures-A4 and A5 happened to be issued from the village office concerned. It also appears that the main allegations are against the 1^st accused, who is alleged to have received money, forged the records and handed it over to the 1^st accused. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have already been arrested.

¶31

6.Having considered the entire aspects, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for

¶32

B.A No.3011 of 2018

¶33

¶34

anticipatory bail. His custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessitous.

¶35

7.In the result, this application is allowed. The applicant 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 Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 1 p.m., for three months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶37

ii) He 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.

¶38

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

¶39

iv) He shall not leave India without the permission of the Court and if having passport, shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; If release of the passport is required at a later period, he shall be at liberty to move appropriate application before the Court having jurisdiction.

¶40

B.A No.3011 of 2018

¶41

¶42

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.

¶43

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶44

AL/-21.6.

¶45

//true copy//

¶46

P.S. To Judge

Santhosh Sivanarayanan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Sivanarayanan 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

Abdul Khader Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Devi Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Varapuzha Police Station

Nimesh @ Appu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Balaji @ Ilankeswaranrthik Vs State of Kerala