Allowed

Sanoj K. a. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jun 2019Bail Appl./707/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, the 5th accused in a cheating case. The court directed the State to release him on bail upon execution of a bond with two sureties, reporting to the IO, and ensuring no tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on Rs. 30,000 bond with two sureties, to report when required, not tamper with investigation or witnesses, and surrender within ten days if not arrested.

Sanoj K. a. Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | 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 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 707 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 538/2018 OF Perinthalmanna Police Station, Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SANOJ K. A. AGED 42 YEARS

¶9

S/O. ABBOBACKER, KUNNATHAN HOUSE, THANDEKKADU, MARAMBILLY P. O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 547

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031

¶13

2 PRASANTH S/O KRISHNAN MASTER ARIMBRATHODIYIL HOUSE PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM - 679322 - IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 26/03/2019 IN CRLMANO-01/2019.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.V.SREEJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No. 707 of 2019

¶18

-2-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is the 5th accused in Crime No.538 of 2018 of Perinthalmanna Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶21

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:-

¶22

The vehicle of the defacto complainant was handed over to the first accused as per an agreement for sale on 18-5-2018. The first accused paid an amount of Rs. 26,62,000/- to the de facto complainant, as advance consideration with an understanding that the first accused would clear the loan in the HDFC Bank. The transfer of the vehicle was not effected as per Rules, as the loan was outstanding with the HDFC Bank. The first accused, without clearing the loan, transferred the vehicle to the 2nd accused without the consent and the knowledge of the de facto complainant, who in turn

¶23

Bail Appl..No. 707 of 2019

¶24

-3-

¶25

transferred the vehicle to the 3rd accused. The 3rd accused, thereafter, transferred the vehicle to the 4 th accused, who in turn transferred the vehicle to the 5 th accused, who is the petitioner. The petitioner transferred the vehicle to a third person, from whom the vehicle was seized by the police.

¶26

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

¶27

Heard.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The vehicle was already seized by the police. Therefore, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary for the progress of investigation of the case. That apart, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Therefore, an order under Section 438

¶29

Bail Appl..No. 707 of 2019

¶30

-4-

¶31

Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

¶32

In the result, this application stands allowed and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with 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 ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶33

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

¶34

(ii) The petitioner shall not

¶35

Bail Appl..No. 707 of 2019

¶36

-5-

¶37

intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation.

¶39

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

¶40

ani/

Sanoj K. a. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanoj K. a. 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

Ummer a.K, Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Nishana Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Saban.K.v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

S.Saji Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar N., Vs State of Kerala

K.K.Joy, Vs State of Kerala