Allowed

Vinod Kumar E v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2019Bail Appl./7087/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications were filed under Section 438 CrPC regarding charges of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Section 420 IPC. The Court allowed anticipatory bail, stating that custodial interrogation was not necessary for investigation in this monetary dispute. Applicants must appear for interrogation and adhere to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; accused released on bail on bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties each.

Vinod Kumar E 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7087 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.926/2019 OF Payyannur Police Station, Kannur

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 5:

¶8

1 VINOD KUMAR E,

¶9

AGED 33 YEARS,

¶10

S/O K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ARIYALAM HOUSE, ATTENGANAM P.O., ANANDASARAM VIA, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD - 671 531.

¶11

2 VENUGOPALAN KARICHERY,

¶12

AGED 39 YEARS,

¶13

S/O. LATE M KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, KUYYAMKATT HOUSE, ERIYA P.O., ANANDASARAM VIA, KANHANGAD,

¶14

KASARGOD - 671 531.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM

¶16

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶17

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

¶18

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 307.

¶19

SRI.C.K.SURESH, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7089/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Bas.7087 & 7089/19 2

¶22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶25

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶26

Bail Appl..No.7089 OF 2019

¶27

CRIME NO.561/2019 OF Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod

¶28

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:

¶29

1 VINOD KUMAR E, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ARIYALAM HOUSE, ATTENGANAM P.O., ANANDASARAM VIA KANHANGAD KASARAGOD 671 531.

¶30

2 VENUGOPALAN KARICHERY, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE M KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, KUYYAMKATT HOUSE, ERIYA P.O. ANANDASARAM VIA, KANHANGAD, KASARGOD 671 531.

¶31

3 JAGADHEESHAN D., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. K. DAMODARAN, KAZHAKE VALAPPU, VAYALAMKUZHI, PERUMBALA P.O., KASARGOD 671 351.

¶32

BY ADVS. SRI.RAHUL SASI SMT.NEETHU PREM

¶33

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS:

¶34

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

¶35

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HOSDURG POLICE STATION- 671 125, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶36

SRI.C.K.SURESH, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶37

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7087/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

Bas.7087 & 7089/19 3

¶39

ORDER

¶40

These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶41

The applicants herein have been arrayed as accused in Crime No.561 of 2019 of the Hosdurg Police Station and in Crime No.926 of 2019 of the Payyannur Police Station registered under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶42

According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by one Rajil.M.K. before the Police alleging that applicants herein were running an E commerce platform in the name and style as Q-Lions. It is alleged that the accused received a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- by inducing the de facto complainant to believe that he would be made a business partner.

¶43

Sri. Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted that the dispute relates to a purely monetary transaction between the parties. He would point out that even according to the de facto complainant, the sum of Rs.1,25,000/- was paid on 06.10.2017. However, the complaint was lodged only on 17.09.2019. The learned counsel has also contended that accused Nos.2 to 4 have already been

¶44

Bas.7087 & 7089/19 4

¶45

granted bail by the learned Magistrate.

¶46

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor, who has emphatically opposed the prayer.

¶47

I have considered the submissions and have perused the records. Essentially the allegation is that money was received for making the de facto complainant a partner in the business run by the applicant. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are required for an effective investigation in a case of this nature.

¶48

In the result, these applications will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on each of these cases on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶49

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶50

ii) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of

¶51

Bas.7087 & 7089/19 5

¶52

the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶53

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶54

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶57

JUDGE

¶58

DSV/16.12.19

Vinod Kumar E v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar E 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

Agarwal Jagadish Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs Unioin of India

Syamkumar M Vs State of Kerala

Nishad Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar E Vs State of Kerala

Abdulla.a.R Vs State of Kerala

Hidayathulla Vs State of Kerala