Allowed

Faleel v. Vs Sho, Kannur Town Police Station

Kerala HC21 Feb 2018Bail Appl./305/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under Section 420 IPC. Bail was granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties for Rs. 50,000 each, along with conditions prohibiting tampering with evidence and leaving the state.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each for Rs. 50,000/- and depositing Rs. 50,000 in the Magistrate's Court.

Faleel v. Vs Sho, Kannur Town Police Station — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 305 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1067/2017 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

FALEEL V., S/O.PATHOOTTY,40 YEARS,VAZHAYIL HOUSE,MAMMAKKUNNU, KADAMBUR,PO EDAKKAD,KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.ASHIS

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

SHO, KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA-682031.

¶12

BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON 21-02-2018 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J

¶15

¶16

B.A.No.305 of 2018

¶17

---------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of February, 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as Crime No.1067/2017 of the Kannur Town police station under Section 420 IPC. He seeks the protection envisaged under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the event of arrest by the police in the case.

¶20

The prosecution case can be briefly stated as follows: On 30.01.2016, the petitioner made representation to the de facto complainant and his wife that he was intending to purchase a lodge at Vadakara along with two other persons as partners. He told the de facto complainant that if he was willing to pay Rs.50 lakhs on or before 31.12.2016, he would also be made a partner along with him and that the de facto complainant would get a minimum of one lakh rupees per month as profit from the investment.

¶21

B.A.No.305/2018

¶22

¶23

The offer appeared to be lucarative to the de facto complainant. He agreed to be a partner along with the petitioner. He paid Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner on 07.02.2016, another Rs.10,00,000/- on 03.07.2016 and another Rs.10,00,000/- on 04.12.2016 and agreed to pay the balance amount on or before 15.12.2016. The petitioner issued a cheque drawn on his account for thirty lakhs rupess to the de facto complainant on 04.12.2016. One week after the last payment, the petitioner vacated the rented house occupied by him without informing the de facto complainant and the de facto complainant could not contact the petitioner thereafter. Then, the de facto complainant presented the cheque in the bank and it was returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds in the account maintained by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner has cheated the de facto complainant and committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶24

B.A.No.305/2018

¶25

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

¶27

The sum and substance of the allegation against the petitioner is that he received an amount of thirty lakhs rupees from the de facto complainant on the inducement that the de facto complainant would be made a partner of the business proposed to be conducted by him but he failed to keep his promise and he did not return the money to the de facto complainant and that the cheque given by him to the de facto complainant was dishonoured. It is highly doubtful whether a person would have parted with thirty lakhs rupees merely on the security of a cheque given to him for that amount. There is also no explanation why the de facto complainant did not institute any case against the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on dishonour of the cheque given to him by the petitioner. Even if the entire allegations against the

¶28

B.A.No.305/2018

¶29

¶30

petitioner are accepted, it is still a matter to be proved at the time of trial that the petitioner had dishonest intention even at the time of receiving the amount from the de facto complainant. At any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be not necessary to have an effective investigation in the case. The prosecution has no case that the petitioner has got criminal antecedents. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the discretion of the Court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner to grant him pre-arrest bail on imposing sufficient conditions to ensure that he would not abscond and flee from justice.

¶31

While granting anticipatory bail, normally, the Court shall not impose a condition as to deposit of cash. But, there are exceptions. In Sumit Mehta v. State (2013) 15 SCC 570) , the Apex Court set aside the condition imposed regarding fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for a period of six months in the name of the complainant stating that such

¶32

B.A.No.305/2018

¶33

¶34

a condition is onerous and unreasonable. At the same time, the Apex Court observed as follows:

¶35

“Certainly, in no words are we suggesting that the power to impose a condition of this nature is totally excluded, even in cases of cheating , electricity pilferage, white-collar crimes or chit fund scams etc”.

¶36

In the instant case, the petitioner has admitted in the bail application that he had received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees five lakhs only) from the de facto complainant, though as a loan. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it is proper to impose a condition that the petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in the Magistrate's Court concerned, as a condition of granting bail.

¶37

In the result, the application is allowed and it is ordered as follows:

¶38

The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)

¶39

B.A.No.305/2018

¶40

¶41

with two sureties each for the like amount in the event of his arrest by the police in Crime No.1067/2017 of Kannur Town Police Station.

¶42

The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer between 9 a.m and 11 a.m on all Saturdays for a period of three months from the date of his release on bail.

¶43

The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate

¶44

the prosecution witnesses. He shall not make any attempt to tamper with the evidence in the case.

¶45

The petitioner shall not leave the State of

¶46

Kerala without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Court concerned.

¶47

The petitioner shall appear before the

¶48

investigating officer as and when directed in writing to do so.

¶49

(6) The petitioner shall surrender his passport in

¶50

B.A.No.305/2018

¶51

¶52

the Magistrate's Court concerned within three days from the date of his release on bail. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect in the Magistrate's Court concerned within that period.

¶53

(7) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of

¶54

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) in the Magistrate's Court concerned within three days of his release on bail.

¶55

(8) If the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions as to surrender of passport/filing affidavit and deposit of cash within the stipulated time, bail granted to him pursuant to this order shall stand cancelled without any further orders.

¶56

(sd/-)

¶57

R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE

¶58

jsr

Faleel v. Vs Sho, Kannur Town Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faleel v. Vs Sho, Kannur Town Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansu Vs the State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Arun @Achu Vs State of Kerala

Thomas @ Tomy Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kalam Vs State of Kerala