Allowed

N.P.Thomas, v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC6 Jun 2019Bail Appl./2353/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala judgment granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons charged with offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court noted that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and directed the release of petitioners subject to bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs. 30,000/- each with sureties.

N.P.Thomas, Vs Station House Officer — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2353 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 355/2019 of DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 19-03-2019

¶7

CRIME NO. 16/2019 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 N.P.THOMAS,AGED 76 YEARS S/O. LATE PAULOSE, NJARAKATTIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY.

¶10

2 MOLLY THOMAS,AGED 72 YEARS W/O. N.P THOMAS, NJARAKATTIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY.

¶11

3 SILLA PAUL,AGED 36 YEARS W/O. PAUL THOMAS, NJARAKATTIL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.VINUCHAND

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 031.

¶15

2 ELSA JOHN,AGED 26 YEARS NEETTINKARA HOUSE, KUMMANOD PATTIMATTOM P.O, ERENAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 683562.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Case No. BA 2353/19

¶19

-2-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 16 of 2019 of Kunnathunad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

¶22

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:-

¶23

The daughter of the de facto complainant was offered appointment as Assistant Professor in an unaided College run by a Trust in which the first petitioner was the Chairman, the 2^nd petitioner was the Treasurer and the 3^rd petitioner was the joint Secretary. The de facto complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 9,05,000/- with the Trust on the assurance that the said amount would be returned without interest as and when the daughter of the de facto complainant would leave the institution. Subsequently, the daughter of the

¶24

Case No. BA 2353/19

¶25

-3-

¶26

de facto complainant resigned from her job as Assistant Professor. However, the money deposited was not returned to the de facto complainant, who is the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶27

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

¶28

Heard.

¶29

It appears that the first petitioner is aged 76 years and the second petitioner is aged 72 years. There is no allegation that the petitioners cheated the 2^nd respondent by not giving any job in the institution. The only allegation is that the amount deposited by the 2^nd respondent as interest free deposit was not returned by the Trust.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners will be justified in this case.

¶31

Case No. BA 2353/19

¶32

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

¶33

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶37

dl/

N.P.Thomas, v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.P.Thomas, v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajaykumar @ Ajay Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Vs State of Kerala

Shameen Khan.P Vs State of Kerala

Khadija Vs State of Kerala & Another

R.Suresh, Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh, Vs State of Kerala