Allowed

Daniel Mendes v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2020Bail Appl./1665/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused charged with criminal breach of trust and swindling. The court imposed specific conditions including surrender requirements, financial bonds, and restrictions on witness interference, citing pandemic considerations.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with conditions to surrender, execute bond, appear at Investigation Officer, surrender passport, and refrain from witness tampering.

Daniel Mendes Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1665 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST CRIME NO.136/2020 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

DANIEL MENDES, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. GOSWAIN MENDEZ, KALLACHAM MURI, ARATTUVAZHY WARD, ALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.L.SHYAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001.

¶13

3 ADDL.R3 JYOTHINATH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O GOPINATHA PILLAI, JYOTHI NILAYAM HOUSE, OLATHALA OZHIVA MURIYIL, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, PATTANAKKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688536. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 1/2020

¶14

R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.MAYA

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.AMJAD ALI – SR.PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

B.A.No.1665 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of July, 2020

¶22

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶23

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.136 of 2020 of Alappuzha South Police Station, Alappuzha, for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 408 of the IPC. The prosecution case in brief is thus:

¶24

The petitioner was employed as a Store Manager dealing with the accounts in a shop belonging to the defacto complainant, named T.T.Retail (Navigator) at Alappuzha. During the period, starting from January 2019, the petitioner using his position as the Manager and the person-in-charge of the stock of the shop committed criminal breach of trust, as such employee of the shop and misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,61,000/- from the shop and he also unlawfully sold shirts worth Rs.4.64 Lakhs, without issuing any bills or receipts and thereby, swindled an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- from the shop.

¶25

B.A.No.1665 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant, that the petitioner offered to settle the matter and by that time, he absconded and he is no longer appearing and therefore, in case, he is granted an anticipatory bail, he may abscond and not be available for the trial. And therefore, she has very strong objections about granting bail to the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor also opposes the bail application on the very same ground. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documents pertaining to the transaction has been already seized and that the investigation has progressed well and he is willing to co-operate with the investigation, considering the present pandemic situation and also the Full Bench decision of this Court, in W.P.(C) No.9400/2020(suo motu), he may be released on bail.

¶28

After having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances in this case, I find that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The entire act which he has done is confined to this shop where he was employed. The amount involved is definitely large and he will have to co-operate with the investigation, for which conditions can be imposed, but not releasing him on bail and incarcerating him will not be serving any

¶29

B.A.No.1665 OF 2020

¶30

purpose, particularly in the present pandemic situation. The offence alleged against is punishable with imprisonment only upto 7 years and therefore, the Full Bench decision of this court, referred to above, squarely, applies in this case as well.

¶31

In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and after interrogation, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on further conditions:

¶32

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9.00am and 12.00pm for a period of three months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶33

(ii) He shall surrender his passport before the Investigating Officer and the same shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, and in case, he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect.

¶34

(iii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶35

B.A.No.1665 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

(iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

¶38

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail.

¶39

The bail application is allowed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶42

NR/10/7/20

Daniel Mendes v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daniel Mendes 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irshad K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Shinoy E.K., Vs State of Kerala

Ashique Vs State of Kerala

Sinan, Vs State of Kerala

Jomon, Vs State of Kerala

Shihab Ali Vs State of Kerala