Allowed

Suma Dayalan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019Bail Appl./3746/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC regarding alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust, the High Court of Kerala held that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The petitioners applied for bail with a bond of Rs.40,000 and two sureties subject to specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 40,000 and furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum.

Suma Dayalan Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.3746 OF 2018

¶6

CRIME NO.313/2018 OF MATHILAKOM POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SUMA DAYALAN, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. DAYALAN, ERUMATHURUTHY HOUSE P.O., PERINJANAM, KODUNGALLUR, TRISSUR, PIN 680586.

¶9

BY ADVS. SMT.S.SIKKY, SMT.T.RESHMA

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

*ADDL. 2 SHIMA, W/O SHIBIN , THARAYIPURATHU HOUSE PERINJANAM PO, THRISSUR 680686.

¶13

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.06.2018 IN CRL.M.A. NO.6406/2018.

¶14

SRI.K.RAKESH, ADVOCATE FOR ADDL.R2. SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

B.A. No.3746 of 2018

¶18

Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2019

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.1 in the

¶21

instant Crime No. 313/2018 of Mathilakam Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.420, 406 and 34 of the IPC.

¶22

The prosecution case in short is that, the defacto complainant was offered a teaching job in the School managed by the accused No.1 on the understanding that she would be given salary for the said job, and that she should pay a refundable interest free security deposit of Rupees Three Lakhs which should be refunded to her as and when she leaves the job or terminated from service. Pursuant to that, the defacto complainant was appointed as Malayalam teacher in the said School (Mahatma Hindi Vidyala) on 10.7.2014, and when salary for 10 months amounting Rupees One Lakh was due, the same was not paid by the accused and the security deposit was also not reimbursed to her, and that the defacto complainant was forced to leave the School and that the accused had thereby committed the abovesaid offence. Anx.R-2(a) is the agreement between the parties wherein

¶23

B.A. No. 3746 / 2018

¶24

..3..

¶25

it is stipulated that an amount of Rupees Three Lakhs is being paid by the defacto complainant to the 1^st accused as a "donation", with the condition that the same amount will be reimbursed to the former as and when she leaves the job or terminates from service,etc.

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner would point out that, the allegation that the petitioner has not paid salary to the defacto complainant for the period during she had worked is incorrect, as can be seen from Anx.2 which evidences that the defacto complainant has received salaries from the petitioner's School for the various periods mentioned therein. Further counsel for the petitioner would point out that it is not as if the petitioner was never willing to pay the security deposit, but the School Management could not pay the security deposit in view of the acute financial distress faced by the School, and in such a case, it cannot be said that offences as per Secs 406 and 420 of the IPC are disclosed and at best it would only amount to civil dispute which has to be adjudicated and decided at appropriate civil courts, etc.

¶27

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Accordingly it is

¶28

..4..

¶29

B.A. No. 3746 / 2018

¶30

ordered that, in the event of the petitioner being arrested in connection with abovesaid crime, she shall be released on bail on her executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on her furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, both to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶31

Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-

¶32

i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶33

ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation. iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶34

iv. The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶35

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by

¶36

the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶40

MMG

Suma Dayalan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suma Dayalan 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

Shameer B.L. Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Jinachandran Vs Parakkal Pushpa

Jose Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor T.P. Vs State of Kerala

Hashim @ Asham Vs State of Kerala

Vipin.K.v Vs State of Kerala