Remanded

Joby Cherian v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2019Bail Appl./8068/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding Section 420 IPC allegations of cheating and forgery, the court denied pre-arrest bail but directed the accused to surrender to the investigating officer within 10 days for interrogation before producing for bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender to investigating officer within 10 days; bail application disposed of with direction to produce before court for consideration.

Joby Cherian 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 22ND MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8068 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 254/2018 OF Thenhipalam Police Station , Malappuram

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

JOBY CHERIAN AGED 36 YEARS S/O CHERIAN, AREEKAD HOUSE, FAROKE TOWN, FAROKE AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) SRI.BIJO FRANCIS

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THENJIPALAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶13

3 ADDL. R3 ABDUL RAHIM S/O.PARAYIL KUTTY HASSAN, VELIMUKKU AMSOM, TIRURANGADI

¶14

4 ADDL. R4 ABDUL RASHEED S/O.PARAYIL KOZHIPARAMBATH KUNHIMOIDEEN, VELIMUKKU AMSOM, TIRURANGADI (ADDL R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD 12.12.2018 IN CRL.M.A.1/18)

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON 11.02.2019 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.8068/18

ORDER

The sole accused in Crime No.254 of 2018 of Thenjipalam Police Station apprehending arrest for offences punishable under sections 420, 468, 471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code seeks bail.

¶23

The allegation of the defacto complainants, who are arrayed as additional respondents 3 and 4, as disclosed in the private complaint is that, about 2 years back, accused induced to make them a partner of his optical lens business and got mortgaged 86 cents of land belonging to them, situated in Thenhipalam village. It was mortgaged to a co-operative bank and the sum of Rs.86 lakhs received was allegedly taken by the petitioner. It was alleged that, the ID proof of the accused was forged and the address shown was also wrong. Without honouring the assurance to conduct the business jointly and to remit the profits thereon to the loan transaction, petitioner committed cheating. Complainants were not made partners and hence, complaint was laid.

¶24

According to the accused, he is running an optical lens shop. There was an agreement for sale dated 19.06.2017 with the respondents 3 and 4 for assigning the property involved in the mortgage for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- per cent. Copy of the agreement of sale was produced as Annexure-A1. Accused paid Rs.50 lakhs as advance on the date of agreement. Default was committed by additional respondents 3 and 4.

¶25

B.A.8068/18

¶26

¶27

Hence, Annexure-A2 lawyer notice dated 25.07.2018 was issued. At the time of execution of the agreement for sale, several blank cheques were also handed over. It was also alleged that the defacto complainants required money urgently and they had taken a loan mortgaging their property. Petitioner was made to sign certain documents. The entire money was taken by the defacto complainants, it was alleged.

¶28

The private complaint was laid by the defacto complainant on 03.08.2018. Defacto complainants vehemently disputed the execution of the agreement for sale. Definitely, the genuineness of that document is a matter of investigation. It is on record that the property was mortgaged and a loan for Rs.86 lakhs was availed. The available materials do not disclose under what circumstance the above agreement for sale was executed and only the loan was taken in the name of accused also. If the agreement for sale was in existence, the reason for mortgaging the property and availing the loan is also not discernible. According to the investigating agency, Rs.45 lakhs out of the mortgage was remitted in a loan account of the accused. Substantial amount was given to the defacto complainant also. It is also seen that, Rs.2 lakhs was drawn by the accused.

¶29

These facts disclose that the loan was taken jointly by the accused and the defacto complainant and they shared it. Though several monetary transactions are seen on record, the exact nature of transaction, amounts paid by each person and the circumstance leading

¶30

B.A.8068/18

¶31

¶32

to the transaction are not forthcoming. It appears that, though monetary transactions are evident, both sides are not disclosing the complete details of the transaction. Having considered this, though I am not inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, I am inclined to direct him to surrender before the investigating officer within 10 days from today. He shall be interrogated, and thereafter, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court on the same day itself, which shall consider his bail application on the same day, having regard to the facts mentioned above.

¶33

Bail application is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna

Joby Cherian v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joby Cherian 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

Murali Menon, Vs the Inspector of Police

Joby Varghese Vs the Range Officer

Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Badhusha Vs State of Kerala

Joakim Yesudasan Vs State of Kerala

Pranil Vs State of Kerala