Allowed

Babu.P. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2019Bail Appl./1049/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused charged with cheating under Sections 406, 420, and 34 IPC. The court found no necessity for custodial interrogation as the applicant had no direct interaction with the complainant, relying on the son-in-law's request.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail; directed appearance before Investigating Officer within ten days; bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Babu.P. Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO.1049 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.918/2018 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 :

¶8

BABU.P. AGED 47 YEARS S/O KUNHAMBU, PARAMBATH HOUSE, ANNUR, PAYYANNUR, P.O. PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶12

ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED

¶13

DR.GEORGE. 2 S/0 PETER, PALAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAVUMTHAZHAM, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682308.

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 14.3.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA 1049/2019.

¶15

ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED

¶16

DR.CHRISTINA ANN GEORGE 3 AGED 28 YEARS, D/O P.P GEORGE, KARIKKAKUZHI HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683542.

¶17

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 11.4.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019 IN BA-1049/2019.

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶19

RI RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

BAIL APPL..NO.1049 OF 2019

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶25

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.918 of 2018 of the Puthencruz Police Station, registered under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶26

The aforesaid crime was registered based on information furnished by Dr. George, a retired doctor. According to the defacto complainant, his elder daughter completed her M.B.B.S course in the year 2014 and was working in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode as a tutor. The 1^st accused, Sri. Renjith approached the defacto complainant and he was induced to believe that he has acquaintance with certain persons who would be able to secure PG admission for his daughter. According to the de facto complainant, the applicant and Sri.Ashokan, who was working as a clerical staff in the Directorate of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram were the persons whose names were made mention of by the 1^st accused. Believing his words, the defacto complaint is alleged to have transferred a total sum of Rs.55 Lakhs as suggested by the 1^st accused to the account of the applicant. Later, when

¶27

BAIL APPL..NO.1049 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

the admission was not provided, he tried to contact the accused and when they did not respond, he set the law in motion.

¶30

Heard Sri. M.V. Amaresan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the entire allegations levelled against the applicant are frivolous. According to the learned counsel, the daughter of the defacto complainant had fallen in love with the 1^st accused and later they got married. The 1^st accused is a close friend of the applicant herein. He contacted the applicant and he was told that his fiancee’s father would transfer money and requested that the amount be re-transferred to the account suggested by him. As the request did not appear to be malafide, the applicant agreed to the suggestion. Reliance is placed on Annexure 3 bank statement to substantiate his contention. The learned counsel would also refer to the statement of the defacto complainant and it is urged that he has not alleged that he had an occasion to interact with the applicant herein or that the applicant had persuaded him to part with any sums of money.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation conducted till date reveals that the applicant herein was acting hand in glove with the 1^st accused. The version of the defacto complainant is probabilised by the fact that the entire amounts which came in to the account of the applicant was

¶32

BAIL APPL..NO.1049 OF 2019

¶33

¶34

transferred to the accounts of certain others including the 1^st accused for unlawful gain.

¶35

Sri. Peeyus A Kottam, entered appearance for the defacto complainant. The learned counsel submits that the defacto complainant was made to part with almost half a crore of rupees and the entire amounts had come into the account of the applicant herein. He cannot therefore plead that he has nothing to do with the fraud carried out by the 1^st accused, is the submission.

¶36

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records, which are made available. I find that the 1^st accused in the instant crime was granted an order of pre-arrest bail by this Court by Annexure-2 order. While granting bail, this court took cognizance of the statement of the daughter of the defacto complainant, wherein, she asserted that the 1^st accused is her husband. The records reveal that the defacto complainant had no occasion to interact with the applicant herein. It was based on the request of the 1^st accused, who is the son-in-law of the de facto complainant, that the applicant had permitted him to deposit money in his account which was duly transferred back as is evidenced from Annexure-3. In view of the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary for an effective investigation in the instant case.

¶37

BAIL APPL..NO.1049 OF 2019

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

i) The applicant 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) 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.

¶42

iii) He 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

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Babu.P. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu.P. 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

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Prijith Vs Aneesh

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

G.S. Sasikesh Vs State of Kerala

Shahansha, Vs the Station House Officer

Sunil P.K Vs Ajithkumar K.K