Allowed

Joseph Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Dec 2019Bail Appl./8597/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail appeal under Section 438 CrPC, the High Court of Kerala allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner, accused of cheating (IPC 420/468), was found to be a facilitator. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail subject to cooperation with investigation and strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with sureties and strict conditions regarding appearance for interrogation and non-influence of witnesses.

Joseph Francis Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.8597 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.353/2019 OF Kenichira Police Station , Wayanad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JOSEPH FRANCIS AGED 48 YEARS MADAVATH, KAYYALAMUKKU HOUSE, POOTHADI, KENICHIRA, WAYANAD, KERALA.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS SMT.P.F.ROSY SRI.PHILIP.N.JOSEPH SMT.SNEHA RAJIV

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KENICHIRA POLICE STATION, WYNAD, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 682031.HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. REMESH CHAND PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.8597 OF 2019

¶16

..2..

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.353 of 2019 of the Kenichira Police Station registered under Sections 420 & 468 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The said crime was registered on a complaint filed by Sri.Jose before the learned Magistrate which was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶20

According to the de facto complainant, his elder son, Jinto Jose, is an Engineering Graduate. He is unemployed. The de facto complainant met the applicant in the month of August 2017 and during their conversation, the applicant offered to introduce the 1^st accused, as according to him, the 1^st accused would be in a position to arrange a job for his son in the Indian railways. He was thus taken to the 1^st accused. The 1^st accused is alleged to have told him that it was through the 3^rd accused that jobs are arranged and he demanded a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs. The de facto complainant fell for the words of the 1^st accused. He managed to arrange the money and on 20.8.2017, a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs was handed over to the 1^st accused in the presence of the applicant. Later, for obtaining medical fitness a sum of Rs 55,000/ was demanded and the

¶21

Bail Appl..No.8597 OF 2019

¶22

..3..

¶23

same was paid. Later, the 1^st accused along with Jinto Jose went to Secunderabad and met the 3^rd accused. As directed by him, a further sum of Rs.10 lakh was paid to the 4^th accused, who happens to be the wife of the 1^st accused. When the job was not provided, the de facto complainant met the 1^st accused, who undertook to repay the amount. A cheque was issued, which was dishonoured. Left with no alternative, the law was set in motion.

¶24

Sri.V.M.Syam Kumar, the learned counsel, submitted that the applicant herein is working as a Pump Operator in the Irrigation Department. The 1^st accused is the half brother of the applicant. He would refer to the complaint and he points out that the entire allegations are levelled against accused Nos. 1 and 3 and the accusation against the applicant is that he is the person, who had introduced the de facto complainant to the 1^st accused. He would point out that the amounts were handed over directly to the 1^st accused and the 4^th accused. The applicant has been roped in solely because he is a government servant and under the impression that he would be in a position to persuade the 1^st accused to settle the entire issues.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the investigation conducted till date has revealed that a

¶26

..4..

¶27

Bail Appl..No.8597 OF 2019

¶28

sum in excess of Rs.20 lakhs was collected from the de facto complainant by inducing him to believe that his son, Jinto Jose, would be provided a job as Ticket Collector in Indian Railway. The involvement of the applicant is clearly borne out from the statement of the de facto complainant. It is further submitted that the 1^st accused Vinojan has not been arrested till date and if pre-arrest bail is granted, it would adversely affect the investigation.

¶29

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the case diary.

¶30

On an entire evaluation of the materials, it appears that the role assigned to the applicant is that of a facilitator. The de facto complainant had directly contacted the accused No 1 and 3, and they are the persons who had induced him to part with the amounts. The candidate had even gone to Secundarabad and had met the 3^rd accused. The complainant also admits that when the assured job was not provided, it was the 2^nd accused who had issued the cheque for the payments he had made together with the interest. Though it is too early to say that the applicant is innocent, in the facts and circumstances, I do not think that his custodial interrogation is required. By imposing stringent conditions, he can be directed to cooperate with the investigation.

¶31

..5..

¶32

Bail Appl..No.8597 OF 2019

¶33

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶34

i) The applicant 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.

¶35

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶36

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

¶37

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional

¶38

Court shall be empowered to consider the application for

¶39

cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Bka/12.12.2019

Joseph Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Francis 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

Sudhi @ Harikumar Vs State of Kerala

Anas Vs State of Kerala

Laiju Vs State of Kerala

Syamkumar M Vs State of Kerala

Nishad Vs State of Kerala

Sabu P.B. Vs State of Kerala