Allowed

Akseenia v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2018Bail Appl./4295/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners accused under Section 406 IPC for cheating in a business management dispute. The court held custodial interrogation was not essential as the substantial truth could be ascertained from business records and ordered appearance before the IO within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on conditions of appearance before IO within 10 days, execution of bond with sureties, surrender of passport, and cooperation with investigation.

Akseenia Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4295 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1083/2018 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 AKSEENIA

¶9

W/O. BOBAN, AGED 40 YEARS, KUDUTHUMMURIYIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., KUTTIPUZHA, THIRUVALLA.

¶10

2 BOBAN ANTONY AGED 50 YEARS, KUDUTHUMMURIYIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., KUTTIPUZHA, THIRUVALLA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JAMES

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, THRO' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

SR.PP C.N PRABHAKARAN

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No. 4295 of 2018

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Petitioners are arrayed as the accused in Crime No.1083/2018 of Thiruvalla Police Station for offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. The allegation of the de facto complainant as revealed from her detailed complaint laid to the Police is that the 1^st petitioner is a close relative of the de facto complainant. 2^nd petitioner is the husband of the 1^st petitioner. Husband of the de facto complainant is stated to have entrusted the running of three business concerns run by him to the 2^nd petitioner during the period of 2013-2018 March. In the course of that business, the 2^nd petitioner with the help of the 1^st petitioner is stated to have swindled the entire profit and income to the business concerns to the tune of around rupees one crore. Complaint was laid and crime was registered. Apprehending arrest, petitioners seek bail.

¶20

2. According to the de facto complainant,

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 4295 of 2018

¶22

¶23

it was after creating an absolute faith in the mind of the husband of the de facto complainant that the petitioners got access to the business. They had earned huge amounts and are stated to be in very affluent situation now. On the other hand, now business has practically broken down, alleged the de facto complainant.

¶24

3. Essentially, the question is whether the complaint discloses that there was an entrustment of the business with the 2^nd petitioner. The question whether they have misappropriated the amount or committed the acts of cheating depend

¶25

on the actual amount that had come to the business concerns and its accounts. Definitely, being the person in custody and running of the establishment, the 2^nd petitioner is liable to maintain proper accounts and to answer to the principal employer. The investigation has to progress in that line. Having considered the fact that the substantial truth of the matter can

¶26

Bail Appl..No. 4295 of 2018

¶27

¶28

be identified from the records of income and expenditure and various records maintained in the institution, I am inclined to hold that a custodial interrogation does not appear to be absolutely essential at present. Hence, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶29

Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶30

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of 50,000/- (Rupees₹ fifty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶31

(ii) They shall surrender their passport and

¶32

if not, file an affidavit before the

¶33

Investigating Officer in this regard at the time

¶34

Bail Appl..No. 4295 of 2018

¶35

¶36

of execution of the bond. However, further directions regarding the release of the passport will be within the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional court.

¶37

(iii) They shall appear before the

¶38

Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation, which includes production of all Bank account details of the petitioners, their pass books and all other documents in relation to the petitioners and also in relation to the running of business, if such records are available with the petitioners and regarding which direction is given by the Investigating Officer to produce.

¶39

(iv) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the witnesses.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

Pn 03/12

Akseenia v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akseenia 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

Rameshan K. Vs State of Kerala

Adil Bin Salim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Central Station

Anwar Thasli.P Vs State of Kerala

Priya Vs the State of Kerala

Shahina Vs State of Kerala

Shefeeq Vs State of Kerala