Allowed

N.P.Thomas v. Station House Officer

Kerala HC18 Jun 2019Bail Appl./2630/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a cheating case alleging non-return of a deposit from a college trust. The Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail with bond and undertaking conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; petitioners to execute bond of Rs.30,000/- each with two sureties, surrender within ten days not arrested, and report to Investigating Officer.

N.P.Thomas Vs Station House Officer — 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 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2630 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.169/2019 OF Kunnathunadu Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 N.P.THOMAS AGED 76 YEARS

¶9

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 KUNNATHUNDU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM COCHIN 682 031.

¶15

2 REJEENA M. JOSE, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. JOSE MANIKKATH HOUSE, THANNIPUZHA OKKAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 550.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.E.C.POULOSE SMT.ANGELY CHERIAN SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No.2630 of 2019

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are accused in

¶23

Crime No. 169 of 2019 of Kunnathunad Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.

¶24

2. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:-

¶25

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.10,00,000/- with the Trust on

¶26

the assurance that the said amount would

¶27

Bail Appl..No.2630 of 2019

¶28

-3-

¶29

be returned without interest as and when

¶30

the de facto complainant would leave the institution. Subsequently, the de facto complainant resigned from her job as Assistant Professor. However, the money deposited was not returned to the de facto

¶31

complainant, who is the 2^nd respondent

¶32

herein.

¶33

3. The petitioners have filed this

¶34

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶35

4. Heard.

¶36

5. It appears that the first petitioner

¶37

is aged 76 years and the second petitioner is aged 72 years. There is no allegation

¶38

that the petitioners cheated the 2^nd

¶39

respondent by not giving job in the

¶40

Bail Appl..No.2630 of 2019

¶41

-4-

¶42

institution. The only allegation is that the amount deposited by the 2^nd respondent as interest free deposit was not returned

¶43

by the Trust.

¶44

6. Considering the facts and

¶45

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

¶46

of the petitioners will be justified in this case.

¶47

In the result, this application stands allowed, and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioners on

¶48

bail, in the event of their arrest in

¶49

Bail Appl..No.2630 of 2019

¶50

-5-

¶51

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 ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶52

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as

¶53

and when required by the investigating officer for

¶54

interrogation.

¶55

Bail Appl..No.2630 of 2019

¶56

-6-

¶57

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

¶58

the investigation.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶61

STK

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sijo Varkey Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Vinodkumar v., Vs State of Kerala

Remani Chacko, Vs State of Kerala

Faisan, Vs State of Kerala