Allowed

Ajayakumar G. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2020Bail Appl./1806/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed anticipatory bail applications filed by accused persons in an offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The court found the dispute to be primarily civil in nature but imposed strict conditions including surrender, cooperation, and surrender of passports.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with conditions to surrender, cooperate with investigation, and provide passports or affidavit within one month.

Ajayakumar G. Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3791 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.120/2020 OF YEROOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SHAJILAL, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN, POURNAMI HOUSE, NEAR GOVT HIGH SCHOOL, AYLARA P.O, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN-691 312. 2 SUJA, W/O.SHAJILAL, POURNAMI HOUSE, NEAR GOVT HIGH SCHOOL, AYLARA P.O, ANCHAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN -691 312. BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 ADDL.R2 KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O DAMODARAN, KRISHNA VILASAM HOUSE, KURUVIKONAM, AREEPLACHY P.O. ANCHAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691 333. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.07.2020 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2020 R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJAY V.ANAND

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.AMJAD ALI – SR.PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..1806/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A.NOS.3791 & 1806 OF 2020 2

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶19

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶20

Bail Appl..No.1806 OF 2020

¶21

CRIME NO.120/2020 OF YEROOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶22

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶23

AJAYAKUMAR G., AGED 59 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN, ANJALI, YEROOR VILLAGE, YEROOR MURI, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶25

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶26

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031. (CRIME NO 120/2020 OF YEROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

¶27

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, YEROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 689 312, (CRIME NO 120/2020 OF YEROOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT)

¶28

3 ADDL R3 KRISHNANKUTTY, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O DAMODARAN, KRISHNA VILASAM HOUSE, KURUVIKONAM, AREEPLACHY.P.O., ANCHAL VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM- 691333 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2020 IN CRL.M.A. 1/2020

¶29

R3 BY ADV. SRI.AJAY V.ANAND

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.08.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3791/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

B.A.NOS.3791 & 1806 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

COMMON ORDER

¶34

Dated this the 19th day of August, 2020

¶35

APPLICATIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶36

The applicants in B.A.No.3791 of 2020 are accused 1 and 2, while the applicant in B.A.No.1806 of 2020 is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.120 of 2020 of Yeroor Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶37

Accused 1 to 3, in furtherance of common intention, to cheat the defacto complainant, dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum of Rs.35 Lakhs on 03.08.2016 as advance payment towards transfer of eight vehicles with their company, because their business was being wound up due to failure and the vehicles were intended to be transferred. However, when the defacto complainant approached the applicants, they stated that the vehicles have already been sold and thus cheated the defacto complainant.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned

¶39

B.A.NOS.3791 & 1806 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

counsel appearing for the applicants would submit that the allegations are false and that they do not have any intention to cheat the defacto complainant as alleged. It is admitted that there was some business transaction between the applicants and the defacto complainant. But, regarding that, some dispute arose and a civil suit is also pending before the Sub Court, Punalur, as O.S.No. 10 of 2019. The dispute is primarily of a civil nature and has to be settled by a civil court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, no criminal case is made out.

¶42

The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submits that the applicants were not available for interrogation by the Police and have been constantly absconding and therefore, it must be assured that they would co-operate with the investigation and be available for interrogation by the Investigating Officer. And, therefore, the learned counsel fairly submits that the conditions may be imposed, while granting them bail, so that their availability for interrogation may be ensured.

¶43

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, I find that there is a dispute between the applicants and defacto complainant regarding the alleged transaction of some vehicles. The civil court definitely will have to decide the dispute between the

¶44

B.A.NOS.3791 & 1806 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

parties and will have to come to a conclusion. However, there is also an element of cheating alleged by the defacto complainant in his complaint, which will have to be considered, whether the applicants had such dishonest intention at the very inception. I find that the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents and since they have agreed to co-operate with the investigation, they are entitled to a prearrest bail as prayed for.

¶47

In the result, the applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within one month. After interrogation, they shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), each, with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following further conditions:

¶48

(i) They shall surrender their passports before the Investigating Officer, which shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, in case, they do not have a passport, they shall file an affidavit to that effect.

¶49

(ii) They shall co-operate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶50

B.A.NOS.3791 & 1806 OF 2020

¶51

¶52

(iii) They shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper

¶53

with evidence.

¶54

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

¶55

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

¶56

The bail applications are allowed.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶59

NR/19/08/20

Ajayakumar G. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayakumar G. 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

Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Vikas Vs State of Kerala

Chenath Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Subrahmanian Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Shajilal Vs State of Kerala