Allowed

Boban Joseph, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2019Bail Appl./2728/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the second accused in a cheating case. Observing the dispute was predominantly civil and noting the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, the Court directed the release of the petitioner on bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditions to report and not tamper with investigation.

Boban Joseph, 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

FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2728 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.691/2018 OF ALOOR POLICE STATION, Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

BOBAN JOSEPH, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, ZION HEBRON, MURIYAD, ARAMBA NAGAR, DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 670 006.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANJAY

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALOOR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT AT ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE - 682 031.

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 PHILIP JOSEPH 59 YEARS, S/O VANIYAPURAKKAL JOSEPH, MURIYAD, ARAMBH NAGAR DESOM, MURIYAD VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-670006.

¶13

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.6.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019 IN BA-2728/2019.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No.2728 of 2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No. 691 of 2018 of Aloor Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶21

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

¶22

The petitioner received an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/in the year 2011 from the de facto complainant for the purpose of developing a Church on the promise that the said amount would returned as and when demanded. The said amount was collected by the petitioner for and on behalf of his wife and another person. However, when the said amount was demanded in the year 2018, the petitioner did not repay the same.

¶23

Bail Appl..No.2728 of 2019

¶24

-3-

¶25

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

¶26

Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the 2nd respondent who is the de facto complainant. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner is aged 63 years. It appears from the facts and circumstances as revealed from the case diary that the dispute involved in this case is premodinantly civil in nature. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C,. in favour of the petitioner will be justified.

¶28

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

¶29

Bail Appl..No.2728 of 2019

¶30

-4-

¶31

petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in 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 Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within 10 days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

¶35

Bail Appl..No.2728 of 2019

¶36

-5-

¶37

Needless to state that I have not made 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.

¶38

Sd/- B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

¶39

ani/

¶40

/true copy/

Boban Joseph, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boban Joseph, 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

Santhamma Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Francis Vs State of Kerala

Sushilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Victim Vs Pappachan.C.P

Aby George Vs the State of Kerala