Allowed

Sathyan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Oct 2018Bail Appl./4485/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning a property sale dispute, the Court ruled that since the matter involves complex document-based civil transactions and a pending civil suit, custodial interrogation is unnecessary. Pre-arrest bail was granted with specific conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent tampering or further offences.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; applicants released on pre-arrest bail executed a bond for Rs.50,000 with sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation with investigation and no inducement.

Sathyan 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

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 16TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4485 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1334/2017 OF TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1 SATHYAN. AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. KUNJAYYAPPAN, KODAKKATTIL HOUSE, CHOONDAL VILLAGE & DESOM, THALAPPILLY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 502.

¶9

2 SANAL K.SATHYAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. SATHYAN, KODAKKATTIL HOUSE, CHOONDAL VILLAGE & DESOM, THALAPPILLY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 502.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO. 1334 OF 2017INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN EAST POLICE STATION THRISSUR), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2 ADDL.R2. RAVEENDRANATH, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.KANNANKUTTY, VELLATT HOUSE, KUNNATHUMANA LANE, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680001.

¶14

*** ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.07.2018 IN CRL.M.A 7660/2018 IN B.A.NO.4485/2018.**

¶15

R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.10.2018, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4490/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.As.4485 & 4490 of 2018

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The applicants in B.A.No.4485/2018 are the accused Nos. 1 and 2, and the applicants in B.A.No. 4490/2018 are the accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Crime No. 1334/2017 of the Thrissur East Town Police Station. The above crime was registered on the strength of a complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur.

¶21

In his complaint, he alleges that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are his friends. They were the absolute owners of a item of property having an extent of 2.53 ½ Acres situated within the

¶22

limits of Vellanttanjoor village. The de facto complainant was made to believe by accused Nos.1 and 2 that one half rights over the said property would be sold to him for a total consideration of Rs. 66.78 Lakhs and an oral agreement was entered into. In terms of the understanding between the parties, the agreed consideration was transferred to the accounts of the accused. However, the sale deed was not executed and registered. The parties decided to reduce the terms of understanding in writing and an agreement for sale was entered into, on 13.05.2016,

¶23

B.As.4485 & 4490 of 2018

¶24

¶25

wherein the accused acknowledged the receipt of the entire sale consideration on previous dates. It is further alleged that against the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 transferred the property in favour of accused Nos. 3 and 4 after receiving consideration. It is further alleged that the said property was mortgaged by the accused with the Kuttanalloor Service Co-operative Bank and they have realised large sums of money. It is on these allegations, the complaint was lodged and the crime was registered.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos. 1 and 2 would contend that the allegations now levelled against them are without basis. According to the learned counsel, the de facto complainant has suppressed the actual facts. Referring to Annexure-A2 in B.A. No.4485/2018, it is submitted that an agreement was entered into between the parties on, 04.04.2015, as per which, the de facto complainant had agreed to purchase the entire extent of 2.53 acres at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per cent. The de facto complainant was obliged to get the sale deed executed and registered after paying the sale consideration, within a period of 8 months from the date of execution of the agreement. A sum of Rs.66.78 lakhs was transferred to the

¶27

B.As.4485 & 4490 of 2018

¶28

¶29

accounts of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. However, the sale deed could not be executed owing to the failure of the de facto complainant to pay the balance sale consideration. Later, the property belonging to one co-sharer was purchased by accused Nos. 1 and 2. A fresh agreement was thereafter entered into, on 13.05.2016, in respect of the one half rights over the entire property. However, he delayed the matter and later came up with a proposal for development of the property and introduced accused Nos.3 and 4 to the applicants. The learned counsel also referred to Annexure-A5 record note to substantiate his contention that it was at the instance of the de facto complainant that a decision was taken to develop the property with the assistance of accused Nos. 3 and 4. The learned counsel would further submit that a civil suit has been instituted by the de facto complainant before the Sub Court, Thrissur, seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale with an alternate prayer for return of the advance amount. It is submitted that the written statement has been filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the suit is pending.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for accused Nos. 3 and

¶31

4 would contend that they have no connection whatsoever with

¶32

B.As.4485 & 4490 of 2018

¶33

¶34

the de facto complainant. According to the learned counsel, they are bona fide purchasers of the property for valid consideration and they have been roped in without any cause. Referring to the complaint, it is submitted that the offences alleged will not be made out against them.

¶35

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials made available by both sides. Admittedly, there has been a series of transactions with regard to sale of an item of immovable property. The matter is in seisin of the civil court. The entire transaction is borne out by documents and in that view of the matter, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the applicants is required for an effective investigation in the instant case. I am of the view that by imposing appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest of the de facto complainant, the applicants can be granted an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶36

In the result, these applications will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of

¶37

B.As.4485 & 4490 of 2018

¶38

¶39

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶40

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶41

ii) They 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.

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶46

Dxy

Sathyan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathyan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed P.V Vs State of Kerala

Ashifa.C Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith @ Karumady Vs State of Kerala

Thasleem.K.K Vs State of Kerala

Manoj M.M. Vs State of Kerala

Subin Vs State of Kerala