Allowed

Joe Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Sept 2020Bail Appl./3608/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, the court allowed bail to the first accused alleged of cheating involving misappropriation of funds for a mock examination, directing surrender and bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to surrender within two weeks, bond execution with sureties, deposit of Rs.25,000, and conditions of non-interference.

Joe Thomas 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

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 31ST BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3608 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 412/2020 DATED 08-06-2020 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

CRIME NO.122/2020 OF Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

JOE THOMAS, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, PERAMANGALAM HOUSE, CATHERINE ROAD, KALATHODE DESOM, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921)

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.(CRIME NO.122/2020 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680007. (CRIME NO.122/2020 OF NEDUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)

¶14

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.3608 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 22nd day of September 2020

¶20

This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶21

Applicant is the first accused in Crime

¶22

No.122/2020 of Nedupuzha Police Station, Thrissur, for having allegedly committed offences punishable

¶23

under Sections 406, 420 and 466 of the IPC.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶25

applicant along with the 2^nd accused who is his sister, dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver a sum of Rs.45,000/- to him

¶26

under the belief that a BCA course is to be

¶27

conducted by him recognized by the Madurai Kamaraj University for the academic year of 2019 and also allegedly committed an examination purporting to the examination of the University. But later on it

¶28

was revealed that it was a mock examination and

¶29

that the de facto complainant has been cheated and

¶30

Bail Appl..No.3608 OF 2020

¶31

the amount deposited by him misappropriated by the

¶32

accused in furtherance of common intention.

¶33

The applicant would contend that he was

¶34

only conducting a tuition centre and preparing students to appear for the National Open School exam conducted by the Madurai Kamaraj University and that only mock tests were conducted for the

¶35

purpose of preparing the students for the

¶36

university examination and that he has not forged any documents to make the de facto complainant believe that University examination was being conducted. Under the circumstances the applicant submits that he may be released on anticipatory

¶37

bail since no custodial interrogation of the applicant may be required and he is willing to cooperate with the investigation.

¶38

The de facto complainant was issued with a

¶39

notice, through the Station House Officer it was

¶40

attempted to be served, and under instructions the

¶41

¶42

Bail Appl..No.3608 OF 2020

¶43

learned Public Prosecutor submits that the SHO has conveyed that the notice has been served on the de facto complainant. But none appears for the de facto complainant.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant

¶45

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶46

Even though, there is an allegation by the

¶47

de facto complainant that 23 other students were similarly placed as him and amounts have been taken from them totaling about 7 lakhs and all of

¶48

them were cheated but none other than the de facto complainant has actually confirmed with a complaint and therefore there is no other criminal antecedents against the applicant. The contention

¶49

of the applicant that it was not a University examination as believed by the applicant which was conducted but it was only a mock test conducted by the tuition institute to prepare the students for appearing for the University examination and there

¶50

¶51

Bail Appl..No.3608 OF 2020

¶52

is nothing wrong in conducting such an examination

¶53

by the applicant. Investigation will have to

¶54

continue and see whether the applicant had actually cheated the de facto complainant in that regard. However, I find that the applicant can be granted an anticipatory bail on certain conditions.

¶55

In the result the application is allowed

¶56

and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and

¶57

after interrogation in the event of his being

¶58

arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶59

investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶60

He shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-

¶61

before the jurisdictional Magistrate

¶62

Bail Appl..No.3608 OF 2020

¶63

which shall be retained till the

¶64

disposal of the crime.

¶65

investigating officer as and when called for.

¶66

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶67

offences during the bail period.

¶68

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶69

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Joe Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joe Thomas 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

Jayaraj, Vs State of Kerala

Alice Antony Vs State of Kerala

Jifsal C B Vs Union of India

Anil Kumar a. v. Vs State of Kerala

Madhu Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Panachikkal Vs State of Kerala