Disposed

Raju Antony, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2019Bail Appl./2551/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a bail application by directing the petitioners to undergo interrogation by the Investigating Officer within 20 days. The Magistrate will consider bail only after the petitioners are produced following this interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to undergo interrogation by IO by 27.08.2019; bail to be decided by Magistrate after production following interrogation.

Raju Antony, 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2551 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.719/2019 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 14:

¶8

1 RAJU ANTONY, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY, HOUSE NO.27/300. KARAKKAL, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686101.

¶9

2 THANKAMMA RAJU,

¶10

AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.RAJU ANTONY, HOUSE NO.27/300. KARAKKAL, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686101.

¶11

3 TONY JOSEPH, AGED 36 YEARS, H/O.RAKHI RAJU, HOUSE NO.27/300. KARAKKAL, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686101.

¶12

4 RAKHI RAJU, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.RAJU ANTONY, HOUSE NO.31/444. KARAKKAL, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA-686161.

¶13

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SRI.C.IJLAL SRI.ARUN CHAND SRI.JOSEPH MARY DAS SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER KUM.K.SALMA JENNATH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-11.

¶16

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION,

¶17

B.A.No.2551 of 2019

¶18

¶19

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 018.

¶20

3 MANOHARAN P.G., S/O.GOVINDHAN, AGED 62 YEARS, PAZHUKUNNATH (H), EDAMUTTAM, PIN- 680568, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶21

4 ATHIRA, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.HIRAN, PAZHUKUNNATH (H), EDAMUTTAM, PIN-680568, THRISSUR DISTRICT (ADDITIONAL R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.08.2019 IN CRL. M.A. NO.1 OF 2019).

¶22

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.SIRAJ MEHABOOB SMT.V.S.SHILPA KALA

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

B.A.No.2551 of 2019

¶27

¶28

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶29

=========================== B.A.No.2551 of 2019

¶30

=========================== Dated this the 07^th day of August, 2019

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The four petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 4 in the instant Crime No.719/2019 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.406 and 420 read with Sec.34 of the IPC.

¶33

The prosecution case in short is that the accused Nos.1 to 4, with an intention to cheat the de facto complainant and her daughter, had promised to procure the post of a teacher in the school being managed and run by the Guruvayur Devaswom Board and the first accused, had on 25.05.2017, received Rs.6 lakhs in cash from the de facto complainant in the compound of the YMCA in Ernakulam and another Rs.8 lakhs on 25.05.2017 and that the first and second accused, had on several times, received Rs.8,40,000/- by way of bank transfer and that as per the instructions of the first accused, the de facto complainant had deposited Rs.20,000/- in the account of the fourth accused. That the third accused had claimed himself to be a member of the Devaswom Board and that in

¶34

B.A.No.2551 of 2019

¶35

¶36

total an amount of Rs.22,60,000/- was received by the accused persons and that till date the job has not been procured by them nor did they return the money and thus they have been unduly been benefitted and thus they have committed the aforesaid offences.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the petitioners are innocent and have never committed any offence as alleged. The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners are husband and wife respectively. The 3^rd petitioner is the husband of a daughter of the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners. The 4^th petitioner is another daughter of the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners. The 1^st petitioner, a senior citizen, is the Managing Partner of a production and distribution company named “Achukutty Films”. The 1^st petitioner was in dire financial liability owing to the release of his new Malayalam movie “Dance Dance”. The 1^st petitioner had borrowed Rs.3.20 lakhs from the de facto complainant at an exorbitant rate of 36% per mensem. Out of the said Rs.3.20 Lakhs, Rs.1.5 lakhs was transferred by the de facto complainant to the account of the 2^nd petitioner on 01.06.2017 and another Rs.1.5 lakhs on 20.06.2017, as can be seen from Annexure A1 bank account statement and Rs.20,000/- to the account of the 4^th petitioner. The petitioner had remitted back Rs.1.5 lakhs by depositing the same in the bank account of the son-in-law of the de facto complainant, one Hiran by

¶38

B.A.No.2551 of 2019

¶39

¶40

CMD. The said criminal case is filed for the reason that the 1^st petitioner failed to pay the balance amount and the exorbitant interest. The 2^nd petitioner has now preferred a complaint against the de facto complainant and his son-in-law before the District Police Chief, Kottayam District and the Police Inspector, Changanacherry, vide Annexures A2 and A3.

¶41

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that the allegations disclosed against the petitioners are serious and further that the 1^st petitioner (A-1) has been involved in two other similar crimes viz., Crime No.218/2017 of Thampanoor Police Station for offence as per Sec.420 of the IPC and Crime No.590/2018 of Thampanoor Police Station for the very same offence.

¶42

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered as follows:

¶43

(i) Petitioners will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer in relation to the instant crime, for interrogation purposes, without any further delay, at any rate by 9 a.m. on any day on or before 27.08.2019.

¶44

(ii) Petitioners will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the conduct of the above interrogation process. If the interrogation process

¶45

B.A.No.2551 of 2019

¶46

¶47

is not over on a single day, it will be open to the Investigating Officer to direct the petitioners to appear before him for interrogation purpose on subsequent occasions, upon which the petitioners have to comply with.

¶48

(iii) After completing the above interrogation process, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioners before the jurisdictional Magistrate court concerned in relation to the instant crime, thereupon the learned Magistrate will consider and pass orders on the bail applications of the petitioners on the same day of their production, after hearing the petitioners’ counsel and the learned Public Prosecutor and after taking due note of the facts and circumstances of this case.

¶49

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶52

vgd

Raju Antony, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Antony, 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

Alankottu Rashid, Vs Naseena T.V.

Nisha.K.G Vs State of Kerala

Biju Antony, Vs Mohammed Y.Safirullah

Muhammed Sager, Vs State of Kerala

Sreenish, Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Vs State of Kerala