Allowed

Jacob Chandy, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2019Bail Appl./542/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused individuals charged with offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Granting bail, holding custodial interrogation unnecessary and imposing standard bond and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioners enlarged on bail with bond of Rs.40,000 each, two sureties, reporting on Saturdays, and conditions against tampering with investigation or witnesses.

Jacob Chandy, Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | 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 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 542 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 1979/2018 OF Ernakulam North Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 JACOB CHANDY, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.J.I.CHANDY, MATTEETHRA HOUSE, 49/84-J PADAM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., PIN - 682 026.

¶9

2 DAVID JACOB CHANDY AGED 1 YEARS S/O.JACOB CHANDY, MATTEETHRA HOUSE, 49/84-J PADAM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., PIN - 682 026.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SMT.M.SANTHY SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2 ADDL.R2 GEORGE M VARGHESE AGED 47 YEARS, S/O BENNY VARGHESE, MANIYARA HOUSE, ALPHIA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, CUSAT P.O.

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 25.3.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2019.

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 542 of 2019

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SRI.S.SAJJU,PP

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 542 of 2019

¶22

-3-

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners are the accused in

¶25

Crime No.1979/2018 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶26

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

¶27

3. Heard.

¶28

4. The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:

¶29

The first accused is a company engaged in the construction of flats and the second accused is the Managing Director of the said company. The second respondent, who is the

¶30

defacto complainant, paid a total amount of

¶31

Bail Appl..No. 542 of 2019

¶32

-4-

¶33

Rs.66,49,820/- to the second accused for a flat in the project. However, even though the above said amount was paid in 2015, the flat is not yet handed over to the second respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the flat is not ready to

¶34

be handed over to the second respondent, even though the construction has been advanced much. The first petitioner herein is the third accused. The second petitioner

¶35

herein is the 4^th accused. The first petitioner is the Finance Manager and the second petitioner is the Deputy General Manager of the said company. The agreement was admittedly executed between the first

¶36

accused and the second respondent. The

¶37

Bail Appl..No. 542 of 2019

¶38

-5-

¶39

agreement was signed by the second accused for and on behalf of the first accused. The petitioners were not the parties to the agreement.

¶40

5. Considering the facts and

¶41

circumstances of the case, including the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor,

¶42

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 of the petitioners will be justified.

¶43

In the result, this application stands allowed and the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail in the event of their

¶44

Bail Appl..No. 542 of 2019

¶45

-6-

¶46

arrest in connection with Crime No.1979/2018

¶47

of Ernakulam Town North Police Station on

¶48

condition of each of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer, of Ernakulam Town North Police Station, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶49

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m.

¶50

and 11 a.m. for two months and

¶51

Bail Appl..No. 542 of 2019

¶52

-7-

¶53

thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for

¶54

interrogation.

¶55

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

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶58

STK

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Jacob Chandy, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Chandy, 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

Aneesh Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith.S.S Vs State of Kerala

Sheela Vs State of Kerala

Abraham J Thaliyath Vs State of Kerala

Johnson Kappalumakkal, Vs State of Kerala