Allowed

S.Saji Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2019Bail Appl./1942/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to the accused in a cheating case, observing that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature and directing release on a bail bond with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, upon surrendering within ten days, subject to reporting to IO and not tampering with witnesses.

S.Saji Kumar, 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

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1942 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 370/2019 OF Kollam East Police Station, Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

S.SAJI KUMAR, AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SETHU NATH, MANAGING DIRECTOR, MAAS PROGRAMS INDIA PVT.LTD., KOCHI, KERALA RESIDING AT MEGHA MALHAR, SDPY ROAD, PALLURUTHI, RAMESWARAM, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 006.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN PANICKER SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.

¶13

3 VISHNU SYAM, S/O.SYAM LAL, PROPRIETOR, PLAZA AGENCIES, ROOM NO.66, STADIUM COMPLEX, KOLLAM - 691 001, RESIDING AT VAISHNAVAM, THEKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 016.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN KEERTHI JAYANANDHAN SHRI. ANOOP P.R. SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED SRI.M.YOHANNAN

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 1942 of 2019

¶19

-2-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 370 of 2019 of Kollam East Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that the de facto complainant advanced an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- to the petitioner on the promise by the petitioner that the profit of the business of the petitioner in MASS Programs India Private Limited would be given to the de facto complainant. However, the profit as promised was not given. On the said allegation, a private complaint was filed by the de facto complainant before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report. Accordingly, the above crime was registered.

¶23

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Bail Appl..No. 1942 of 2019

¶26

-3-

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

¶28

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the dispute involved in this case is pre-dominently civil in nature. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶29

In the result, this bail application stands allowed and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above said crime, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the second respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶30

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 1942 of 2019

¶32

-4-

¶33

a.m. and 11 a.m. for one month and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶35

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶36

Needless to state that this Court has not expressed 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.

¶37

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

¶38

ani/

¶39

/true copy/

S.Saji Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Saji Kumar, 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

Ummer a.K, Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Nishana Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Saban.K.v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sanoj K. a. Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar N., Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Joy, Vs State of Kerala