Allowed

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Aug 2020Bail Appl./3650/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application regarding charges of cheating. The judge found the applicant had a minimal role, granting bail subject to surrender for investigation, executing a bond, and adhering to conditions regarding witness intimidation and repeating offences.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; directed to surrender for investigation; released on bail after interrogation on execution of Rs.50,000 bond with two solvent sureties.

Mahesh Kumar 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 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3650 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1143/2020 OF KODUMON POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MAHESH KUMAR, AGED 30 YEARS, MANOJ BHAVAN, MULAKUZHA, PANDALAM, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689501

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN -682031

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 PRASANTH KUMAR.S, AGED 30 YEARS, PUTHUPURAKKAL, THATTA, MAMMOODU.P.O, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA.691555. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 1/2020

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN – SR.PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A.No.3650 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2020

¶21

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶22

The applicant is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.1143 of

¶23

2020 of Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with the 1^st accused. The prosecution case in brief is thus:

¶24

On 17.12.2015, the 1^st accused had allegedly entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant, assuring that he would be given a job and dishonestly induced him to deliver a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for that purpose. Thereafter, on 25.01.2016, yet another amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was also paid by the defacto complainant to the 1^st accused, for the aforesaid purpose. The applicant, who is the 2^nd accused, received a sum of Rs.25,000/- by bank transfer from the defacto complainant on 03.06.2016 and thus, altogether a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was

¶25

received by the accused together, offering a job to the defacto complainant and thereby, they did not offer the job and

¶26

B.A.No.3650 OF 2020

¶27

¶28

appropriated the aforesaid amount and cheated the defacto complainant and committed the offence.

¶29

The defacto complainant was served with notice. But, none appears for him. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the entire money was actually appropriated by the 1^st accused and the applicant had only introduced the defacto complainant and has very limited role. Rs.25,000/- which he had allegedly received was also handed over to the 1^st accused and it is submitted that the applicant has also filed a complaint against the 1^st accused for having cheated him and the defacto complainant. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. He has no criminal antecedents. And therefore, he may be released on bail, submits the learned counsel appearing for the applicant.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the 1^st accused also has to be apprehended and subjected to custodial interrogation. Release of the applicant on granting an anticipatory bail would adversely affect the prosecution case and therefore, the bail application is vehemently opposed.

¶31

B.A.No.3650 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

After having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances in this case, I find that the applicant has very minimal role in this case. The majority of the amount was received directly by the 1^st accused from the defacto complainant. However, it is also true that Rs.25,000/- was transferred to the account of the applicant, which he says he had handed over to the 1^st accused. All those aspects will have to be enquired into by the Investigating Officer, for which, the applicant will have to co-operate with the investigation. There is no reason to believe that the applicant will not co-operate with the investigation or may abscond. He has no criminal antecedents also. Hence, I am inclined to grant a pre arrest bail to the applicant.

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant 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.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following further conditions:

¶35

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶36

B.A.No.3650 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

(ii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and

¶39

tamper with evidence.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶43

NR/10/08/20

Mahesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Kumar 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

Ajith @ Pathrose Vs State of Kerala

Prasanth Vs State of Kerala

Bineesh Kumar.B Vs the Inspector of Police

Nripan Vs State of Kerala

Anil Jacob, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salim K.C. Vs State of Kerala