Allowed

Sanil Kumar v. T. v State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jul 2020Bail Appl./3256/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order granting anticipatory bail to two accused in separate cases alleging cheque fraud and forgery under the IPC and Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The court held that since the prosecution case is documentary and does not require custodial interrogation to elicit evidence, the petitioners are entitled to bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; petitioners directed to surrender within two weeks; bail granted on execution of bond for Rs. 50,000/ each with two sureties subject to statutory conditions.

Sanil Kumar v. T. 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

MONDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3256 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.434/2019 OF Santhanpara Police Station , Idukki

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SANIL KUMAR V. T. AGED 50 YEARS S/O. THANKAPPAN, KUNJITHANNY P. O., PIN - 685565, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.KHADEEJA RISHBATH KALLINGAL

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.C.N.PRAHAKARAN SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3261/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶19

MONDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.3261 OF 2020

¶20

CRIME NO.435/2019 OF Santhanpara Police Station , Idukki

¶21

PETITIONER/S:

¶22

ANIL KUMAR K.C. AGED 53 YEARS S/O. CHITRAMAGADAN, KALATHIL HOUSE, CHITHIRAPURAM P.O, ANCHAL PIN 685 565 IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶23

BY ADVS. SMT.KHADEEJA RISHBATH KALLINGAL SHRI.ASHISH GOPAL K G

¶24

RESPONDENT/S:

¶25

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

¶26

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..3256/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

COMMON ORDER

¶29

[ Bail Appl..3256/2020, Bail Appl..3261/2020 ] Dated this the 6th day of July 2020

¶30

The petitioner in B.A.No.3256/2020 is the 2^nd accused in

¶31

Crime No.434/2019 while the petitioner in B.A.No.3261/2020 is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.435/2019 of Santhanpara Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466,468, 471 r/w section 34 of IPC and under Section 7 (a) & (b) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.

¶32

The prosecution case in brief is thus:- The petitioners had allegedly in furtherance of common intention with the other coaccused executed forged documents and sale deeds in their favour purporting to be properties comprised in Survey No.20/11 of Chinnakanal Village, which was allegedly covered by two pattas issued to their predecessor in-interest in LA Nos.94 & 96/69. The entire property as per the patta was subsequently sold by different sale deeds and the petitioners would contend that they had purchased the property form the co-accused as per a proper sale deed. But the allegation of the prosecution is that the properties comprised in the patta were already sold and is in the possession

¶33

¶34

B.A Nos.3256 & 3261 of 2020

¶35

of different persons and the petitioners had concocted documents to indicate that the property belonging to the Government in Survey No.148/4 & 1/1, which is actually Government Puramboke were sought to be included in the sale deeds belonging to the petitioners as if the documents comprised in Survey No.20/11 and therefore the crimes were registered against the petitioners.

¶36

The petitioners would contend that they are innocent, bona fide purchasers of the property. They had after the purchase sought to mutate the property in their favour by paying land revenue, it was opposed and consequently they approached this Court by filing W.P (C)Nos.38330/2017 and 38644/2017 and this Court had vide order produced as Annexure 2, directed the revenue authorities to consider the applications filed by the petitioners and dispose of those matters within six months after notice to the petitioners.

¶37

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioners had concocted documents to usurp the property belonging to the Government puramboke over which neither they nor their predecessor-in-interest have any right or title.

¶38

¶39

B.A Nos.3256 & 3261 of 2020

¶40

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that even if what is stated by the prosecution is true they are victims of cheating by their sellers and they are not a party to the alleged cheating or forgery as alleged. Therefore, they cannot be implicated in the crimes. They have purchased the property under the bona fide belief that the sellers had valid title over the property. The fact whether the petitioners were aware of the identity of the property that it was not included in the pattas issued in 1969 as alleged by them is something to be investigated upon. The extent to which they had knowledge and whether they had any complicity in purchasing the property with that knowledge is a matter for investigation. It is true that in the writ petitions, this Court had directed the revenue authorities to dispose of the matter on mutation. It is then that the petitioners were implicated and it is indicated that they also had vital role in forging the documents. Even if what the prosecution says is correct, the fact regarding forgery of documents and the knowledge of the petitioners can be found out on investigation and enquiry for that custodial of the petitioners and the discovery of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not required. The entire

¶41

¶42

B.A Nos.3256 & 3261 of 2020

¶43

prosecution case is based on documentary evidence, which can be laid hands on by the prosecution even without subjecting the petitioners to custodial interrogation. Hence the petitioners are entitled to an anticipatory bail. In the result, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and after interrogation in the event of they being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on following further conditions:

¶44

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a. m. and 12 noon for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶45

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence, intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶46

(iii) They shall not leave their residential jurisdiction without obtaining the permission of the investigating officer.

¶47

(iv)They shall surrender their passport and if they do not have, file an affidavit before the investigating officer and the

¶48

¶49

B.A Nos.3256 & 3261 of 2020

¶50

passport shall be produced before the jurisdictional court.

¶51

(v) They shall not get involved in any other similar crimes

¶52

during the currency of the bail.

¶53

In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

SD/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Sanil Kumar v. T. v State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanil Kumar v. T. 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

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Yesodharan Vs State of Kerala

Ajas Siby Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Nibin K.B. Vs State of Kerala

Pranjith A.I. Vs State of Kerala