Allowed

Unnikrishnan M.N., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Aug 2019Bail Appl./5701/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the accused in a theft case under Section 379 IPC. The court held that the underlying facts indicated a financial dispute primarily of civil nature and granted bail on standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Release of the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, subject to a bond for Rs. 40,000/- with two sureties and conditions to report to the IO and not tamper with evidence.

Unnikrishnan M.N., Vs the 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

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5701 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S/ACCUSED:

¶7

UNNIKRISHNAN M.N., AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.M.P.NANDAKUMAR, PISHARAM HOUSE, NEAR G.L.P.SCHOOL, PADY P.O., KODALY, THRISSUR (DIST), PIN - 680 654.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶9

RESPONDENT/S/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VEEYAPURAM POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA (DIST.), PIN - 690 514.

¶12

3 GOPAKUMAR AGED 26 YEARS, GOKULAM VEEDU, ANARI MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶13

R3 BY ADV. S.SAMEER SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.5701 OF 2019

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 674 of 2019 of Veeyampuram Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus: -

¶22

The vehicle belonging to the petitioner was agreed to be

¶23

sold to the third respondent for a total consideration of Rs.8,40,000/-. The third respondent paid an advance amount of Rs.2,75,000/- at the time of executing the agreement. The vehicle was also handed over to the third respondent by the petitioner. Thereafter, an amount of Rupees one lakh was also paid by the third respondent to the petitioner. The balance

¶24

¶25

Bail Appl..No.5701 OF 2019

¶26

amount to be paid by the third respondent to the petitioner was Rs.54,000/-. The EMI was also agreed to be paid by the third respondent. While so, the petitioner had taken the vehicle from the custody of the third respondent.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner did not commit any theft and that the vehicle in question was given to the petitioner by the third respondent himself with the original RC book. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the dispute involved in this case is predominantly civil in nature. In the said circumstances, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

¶28

In the result, this application stands allowed and the first and the second respondents are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in the above said crime on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent

¶29

¶30

Bail Appl..No.5701 OF 2019

¶31

sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the second respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall report before the

¶33

Investigating Officer as and when required by

¶34

the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶35

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or

¶36

influence the witnesses or in any way tamper

¶37

with the investigation.

¶38

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

¶39

case.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

RK/20.08.2019

Unnikrishnan M.N., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan M.N., v. the 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

Aja S. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Santhu @ Kalippattom Vs State of Kerala

Sharly.P.S Vs State of Kerala

Saju Bin Salim Vs State of Kerala

A.M.Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

Ansari, Vs State of Kerala