Allowed

Nishad K.H v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2018Bail Appl./6125/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court observed that the matter pertains to a commercial dispute between buyer and seller and custodial interrogation was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on execution of bond for Rs.40,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, cooperation, and restriction on tampering.

Nishad K.H 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 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 13TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6125 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NOT REGISTERED

¶7

------

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

NISHAD K.H., AGED 39, S/O.K.K.HARIHARAN, N.S.N. MOTORS, NEAR RAILWAY GATE, PACHALAM, KOCHI-12.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.

¶13

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, REVENUE TOWER, PARK AVENUE ROAD, KOCHI 682025.

¶14

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, KOCHI 682 025.

¶15

4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, KOCHI 682 018.

¶16

ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED

¶17

5. DORES RIZAL, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.RIZAL, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.12-A, 12TH FLOOR, NOEL TOUCH STONE, CRASH ROAD, CIVIL LANE ROAD, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 10015 OF 2017.

¶19

R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI ADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.SAYED MURTHALA THANGAL

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Msd.

¶22

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶23

B.A.No.6125 of 2017

¶24

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2018

¶25

ORDER

¶26

1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

2.The petitioner herein is the accused in Crime No.1395 of 2017 of the Palarivattom Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 405, 415 and 420 of the IPC.

¶28

3.According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein, who is engaged in the sales and service dealership of the Yamaha motor cycles at Pachalam, Ernakulam had accepted a sum of Rs.5,59,000/- from the de facto complainant in the month of March, 2017 after assuring him that he would supply motor cycles and other accessories. However, he failed to honour his undertaking resulting in the lodging of the complaint.

¶29

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that money is due from the de facto complainant to the petitioner and he refers to Annexure A1 cheque allegedly issued by the

¶30

B.A.No.6125 of 2017 2

¶31

de facto complainant. He also refers to Annexure-A3 statement of accounts. It is also submitted that the petitioner herein has instituted a suit against the de facto complainant seeking realisation of amount.

¶32

5.In the course of proceedings, the de facto complainant got himself impleaded.

¶33

6.Taking note of the fact that the disputes relates to settlement of account between two entities, the matter was referred for mediation. However, it did not yield any result.

¶34

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

8.Having considered the submissions advanced and after going through the case diary, it appears to be a dispute between the distributor and a former dealer concerning sale of motor cycles. In the facts and circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not appear to be warranted. I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶36

9.In the result, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions.

¶37

i). The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today

¶38

B.A.No.6125 of 2017 3

¶39

and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶40

ii)The petitioner 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 one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶41

iii)The petitioner 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

iv)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶43

v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶44

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.

¶45

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

IAP //True Copy\ P.A to Judge

Nishad K.H v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishad K.H 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

Syam Chellappan Vs State of Kerala

Karingali Sainudheen Vs the State of Kerala

Renjith @ Swamikuttan Vs State of Kerala

Lalu Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Irfan Vs State of Kerala