Allowed

C.P.Prakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2018Bail Appl./4692/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused in a cheating case involving construction contracts was allowed. The accused was directed to appear for interrogation and release on bail upon execution of a bond with sureties subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant shall appear before IO within ten days; if arrested, to be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each for the like sum.

C.P.Prakash 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4692 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 300/2018 OF VELLATHOOVAL POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

C.P.PRAKASH

¶9

AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, CHIRACKAL HOUSE, ELAMKULA P.O., ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.JIJI SRI.PRATHEESH PRABHA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI AJITH MURALI.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No. 300

¶18

of 2018 registered at the Vellathooval Police Station under § 420

¶19

of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Bail Appl..No. 4692 of 2018

¶21

¶22

The applicant herein is a building contractor, who entered into an agreement with the de facto complainant to carry out the construction of a residential building within a period of six months and received a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-. Failure to complete the construction or to refund the amount received as aforesaid has resulted in the filing of a complaint before the learned Magistrate.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent of the allegations. According to the learned counsel, due to various unforeseen circumstances, the work got delayed. Even prior to the expiry of the period prescribed in the agreement, the de facto complainant has set the law in motion. It is further submitted that Crime No. 217 of 2018 of the Rajakkad Police Station has been registered against the applicant at the instance of a hardware vendor wherein, the allegation is that construction materials were purchased by the applicant from his shop on credit basis and no payment was made. It is submitted that the work was assigned to a sub-contractor who absconded with the money. It is further submitted that the applicant is not a person with criminal

¶24

Bail Appl..No. 4692 of 2018

¶25

¶26

antecedents and prays that he would be subjected to gross humiliation and ignominy if he happens to be arrested and detained.

¶27

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who opposed the prayer.

¶28

Having considered the submissions advanced and after going through the materials made available, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the applicant in the instant case is required for an effective investigation. He can be directed to cooperate with the investigation.

¶29

In the result, this application will stand 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶30

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 4692 of 2018

¶32

¶33

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.

¶34

iii) He 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

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

Dxy

¶40

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

C.P.Prakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.P.Prakash 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

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Thomas P.J. Vs the State of Kerala

Sujith S. Vs State of Kerala