Allowed

P.Biju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2020Bail Appl./3092/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application filed by the first accused in a cheating and forgery case. The court held that arrest was not necessary as the case has been pending since 2015 without arrest and interim relief was sought earlier. Bail was granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted pre-arrest bail directed to surrender within two weeks, bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, and compliance with non-tampering conditions.

P.Biju 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2020 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3092 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 818/2015 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E&O),ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.675/2015 OF Ernakulam South Town Police Station

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

P.BIJU AGED 55 YEARS

¶10

S/O.LATE V.K. ANANDAN, MARKETING MANAGER, LIC OF INDIA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVAN PRAKASH, LIC ROAD, KOZHIKODE-6730019 ADDRESS AS SHOWN IN THE COMPLAINT) PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT KAVITHA, VENNALA HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, VENNALA, NEAR ST.MATHEWS CHURCH, KOCHI-682028

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR SMT.SMITHA (EZHUPUNNA) SRI.DHEERAJ KRISHNAN PEROT SMT.CHITRA JOHNSON

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682031(CRIME NO.675/2015 OF SOUTH TOWN POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM)

¶14

2 ADDL.R2 AJITH.P AGED 58 YEARS S/O LATE V.K ANANDAN, AISWARYA, KARIMIGAL COLONY, PUTHENCRUZ, ERNAKULAM-682308.

¶15

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A NO. 1/2020

¶16

R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.LEAN JOSE

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No.3092 OF 2020 2

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Dated this the 1st day of July 2020

¶23

Petitioner is the 1^st accused in crime No.675/2015 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 463, 420, 467, 468 and 120B of the IPC. The prosecution case in brief is that, in the year 2015, the petitioner had conspired with the deceased 2^nd accused, who is the mother of the petitioner in order to usurp the property belonging to the father of the petitioner and the husband of the 2^nd accused, executed a power of attorney at Annexure A3 and using that power of attorney, the property belonging to the deceased father of the petitioner was sold and they appropriated the entire money for themselves without giving the de facto complainant, who is the 2^nd respondent herein, his share in that property. The mother is no more and the petitioner is now the sole accused. The petitioner had filed Crl.M.C No.1686/2017 before this Court for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.in which there was an interim order granted in favour of

¶24

Bail Appl..No.3092 OF 2020 3

¶25

him as per Annexure A2, and he has produced all documents pertaining to the alleged transaction before the investigating authorities. It is stated that the petitioner may not be arrested and taken into custody for the purpose of investigating of this case. The alleged incident occurred in the year 2015, and so far, the petitioner has not been arrested. Annexure A1 is the FIR pertaining to the crime. It is specifically stated that the petitioner in conspiracy with his mother had executed a forged power of attorney of petitioner's father and executed a sale deed pertaining to his property.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. Nandagopal Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for the additional 2^nd respondent Sri.Lean Jose and the Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶27

It is seen that the petitioner has produced A5, A6 and A7 receipts pertaining to the transaction of 40 lakhs of rupees to the additional respondent/de facto complainant which indicates that he has received his share in the property which was sold. The sale had taken place after the death of the petitioner's father and not using the allegedly forged power of

¶28

Bail Appl..No.3092 OF 2020 4

¶29

attorney.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant Sri.Lean Jose argues that his complaint is regarding the execution of document before the GCDA. But on reading the FIR at Annexure A1, I do not find any such allegation made therein. Hence the argument of the learned counsel Sri.Lean Jose appearing for the de facto complainant cannot be countenanced at this stage. In case he has got another complaint, it is for him to proceed separately against the petitioner for such complaint and allegation. As far as crime No.675/2015 is concerned, it has been pending since 2015 and the petitioner has not so far been arrested and therefore, I am of the opinion that arrest is not found necessary, otherwise he would have definitely been arrested. Crl.M.C filed by him to quash the proceedings, is under consideration of the court and prima facie being satisfied, interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I find that the petitioner is entitled to a pre-arrest bail.

¶31

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks

¶32

Bail Appl..No.3092 OF 2020 5

¶33

and 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 following further conditions.

¶34

(i) He shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses,

¶35

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶36

In case of violation of the bail conditions, the

¶37

prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

P.Biju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Biju 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

George Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh @ Kunju Vs the Station House Officer

Biju P.Nair Vs State of Kerala

Sreesanth T.S. Vs the State of Kerala

Bindhu Vs State of Kerala

Bijina Anna Mathew Vs State of Kerala