The High Court of Kerala dismissed a second application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused charged with cheating. The Court held that without a change in facts or law, a successive application cannot be entertained, noting the accused's criminal antecedents and lack of genuine commitment to repay the defrauded amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1941 Bail Appl..No. 2446 of 2019
CRIME NO. 397/2018 OF Town East Police Station , Thrissur
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
SHOUKKATHALI
AGED 40 YEARS S/O.MOIDU, MELEPPATT VALAPPIL HOUSE, NEAR SCHOOL, NARANIPUZHA, CHANGARAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHAMED SABAH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THRISSUR TOWN EAST POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON 04.04.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2446/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ************************ B.A.No.2446 of 2019
-----------------------------------------Dated this the 4th day of April, 2019
O R D E R
This second application for anticipatory bail is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code).
B.A.No.2446/2019
3
thirtyfive lakhs rupees. The first accused paid Rs.11,50,000/- as advance towards sale consideration and he obtained the original documents of the property from the de facto complainant stating that a loan by way of overdraft has been arranged from the District Co-operative Bank, Thrissur in the name of the company of which the first and the second accused are the Directors. On 01.09.2016, the first accused obtained the signature of the de facto complainant in an agreement for sale of the property. Thereafter, using the title deeds of the property obtained from the de facto complainant, the first accused obtained a loan of two crores and eighty lakhs rupees from the bank in the name of the company in which he was a Director. It is alleged that the first accused did not pay the aforesaid amount to the de facto complainant as agreed by him. It is further alleged that on 25.10.2017, the first accused executed an agreement promising to pay the amount to the de facto complainant but he did not pay the amount.
B.A.No.2446/2019
4
anticipatory bail as B.A.No.3892/2018. As per the order dated 04.07.2018, the aforesaid application was dismissed by this Court. This second application for anticipatory bail is filed by him on 01.04.2019.
“Even though there is room for filing a subsequent bail application in cases where earlier applications have been rejected, the same can be done if there is a change in the fact situation or in law which requires the earlier view being interfered with or where the earlier finding has become obsolete. This is the limited area in which an accused who has been denied bail earlier, can move a
B.A.No.2446/2019
5
subsequent application”.
(emphasis supplied).
B.A.No.2446/2019
6
person who has got criminal antecedents. This Court had taken note of the fact that he was involved in a case registered against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
B.A.No.2446/2019
7
In the result, the prayer for granting anticipatory bail to the
petitioner is rejected and the petition is dismissed.
(sd/-)
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE
jsr/03/04/2019
True Copy
PS to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a second anticipatory bail application can be entertained when there is no change in the fact situation since the dismissal of the earlier one.
Whether an accused with criminal antecedents can be granted pre-arrest bail merely by expressing readiness to repay a portion of an unfulledged banking loan obtained via fraud.
Whether an improvement in investigation after a previous bail rejection constitutes a change of circumstance sufficient to justify entertaining a new bail application.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh RanjanFollowed¶29
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan : AIR 2004 SC 1866 · Who else cites this
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu YadavFollowed¶30
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav : AIR 2005 SC 921 · Who else cites this
Vineeth v. State of KeralaReferred¶36
Vineeth v. State of Kerala : 2015(5) KHC 224
Pandi v. State of KeralaReferred¶36
Pandi v. State of Kerala : 2018(4) KHC 782
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shoukkathali
State of Kerala
R. Narayana Pisharadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
