Allowed

Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2019Bail Appl./3463/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a cheating case (IPC 420/34), the High Court of Kerala allowed relief. The court observed the underlying marital dispute was predominantly civil and directed release on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on bond of Rs.35,000 each with two solvent sureties each; surrender within ten days if not arrested.

Thomas 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

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3463 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.2153/2017 OF Pooyapally Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2&3:

¶8

1 THOMAS AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW, KUNNATHU HOUSE, THULAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 THRESIAMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. THOMAS, KUNNATHU HOUSE, THULAPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL SRI.BIJU P.SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA (SHO, POOYAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM RURAL) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKULAM, KOCHI-31.

¶13

ADDL. MATHEWS DANIEL

¶14

R2 S/O DANIEL MATHAI, AGED 31 YEARS, SEENAI HOUSE, CHENKULAM PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691510.

¶15

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 10.6.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.BIJITH S.KHAN SRI.N.ANAND SMT.V.SREEJA,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

-2-

¶19

Bail Appl..No.3463 of 2019

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in crime No.2153/2017 of Pooyappally Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

¶23

The first accused is the wife of the second

¶24

respondent, who is the defacto complainant herein. The second respondent spent about Rupees twenty eight lakhs, for the purpose of educating the first accused in Australia, on the promise that the first accused would take the second respondent to Australia, after completing her studies. However, the second respondent was not taken to Australia. The second and the third accused are respectively the

¶25

-3-

¶26

Bail Appl..No.3463 of 2019

¶27

father and the mother of the first accused. The first

¶28

accused is presently residing in Australia with her paramour.

¶29

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

¶30

Heard.

¶31

It is not disputed that the matrimonial

¶32

disputes are pending between the first accused and the second respondent before the Family Court, Pala. The sum and substance of the contention of the second respondent is that the second respondent, as the husband of the first accused, spent money for educating the first accused with the expectation and hope that he would be taken to Australia by the first accused. The only allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners are presently conducting the litigation in the family court for and on behalf of the first accused. Having

¶33

-4-

¶34

Bail Appl..No.3463 of 2019

¶35

gone through the relevant inputs, including the relationship between the parties, I am of the view that the dispute involved in this case is pre-dominantly civil in nature. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners.

¶36

In the result, this bail application stands allowed and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in the above said crime, on condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶37

-5-

¶38

Bail Appl..No.3463 of 2019

¶39

The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶40

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

¶41

The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

¶42

Needless to say 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 bail application.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Nkr/09.07.19

Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas 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

Sivan K. Vs State of Kerala

Raju @ Negro Raju Vs State of Kerala

Reji Vs State of Kerala

Saju Bin Salim, Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Venkatesh Vs State of Kerala