Allowed

Raji R. Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2019Bail Appl./1129/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. finding that the cheating dispute was predominantly civil. The petitioners were granted bail on a bond of Rs. 35,000 each with solvent sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in the event of arrest on execution of bond for Rs. 35,000/- each with two solvent sureties under specific conditions. Matters remitted back to lower court for execution.

Raji R. Nair 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1129 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1127/2018 OF Mattannur Police Station , Kannur

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 RAJI R. NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, KEERTHI NIVAS, KOMALA PURAM VILLAGE, ARYAD NORTH, ALAPUZHA.

¶9

2 RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 57 YEARS S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN PILLAI, KEERTHI NIVAS, KOMALA PURAM VILLAGE, ARYAD NORTH, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

2 ADDL.R2 P.V.RAJESH, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O P.V.NARAYANAN, PUTHEN VEEDU, ULIYIL P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/3/2019 IN CRL.MA 1/2019 IN BA 1129/2019.

¶14

By Public Prosecutor SMT. V. SREEJA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.1129 of 2019

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 1127/2018 of Mattannoor Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶20

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners have collected a total amount of Rupees Thirty lakhs from the second respondent during the period from 18.09.2015 to 27.03.2017, on the promise that the second respondent would be made as a partner in the business conducted by the petitioners. However, the second respondent was not made as a partner as promised. The amount received was also not repaid.

¶21

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Service is complete on the second respondent. However, there is no appearance for the second respondent.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

Bail Appl..No.1129 of 2019

¶25

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioners are not involved in any other offence of similar nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the dispute involved in this case is perdominantly civil in nature. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶27

In the result, this application stands allowed and it

¶28

is directed that the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in the above said crime, on condition of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- [Rupees Thirty five thousand only] each with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within fifteen days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions :

¶29

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for two months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶30

Bail Appl..No.1129 of 2019

¶31

¶32

(ii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation. (iii) The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

¶33

Needles to say that this Court has not made any observation with regard to the merits of the case and the observation, if any, made in this order was only for the purpose of disposing of this application.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

kmd

Raji R. Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raji R. Nair 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

P.Surendran Vs Elizebath Daniel

Sulochana Vs State of Kerala

Sasikala Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan @ Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Alikoya Vs State of Kerala

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala