Allowed

T P Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2020Bail Appl./3794/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the second accused in a cheating case involving fraudulently inducing a job visa offer. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary as the accused has no antecedents and offered to return money.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner directed to surrender within three weeks and execute bond with sureties under conditions of cooperation and non-tampering.

T P Joseph 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 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3794 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.225/2020 OF Konni Police Station, Pathanamthitta

¶7

PETITIONER/A2:

¶8

T P JOSEPH AGED 46 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, NATHANIEL TRAVELS AND ACADEMY PVT. LTD. NO.11, 1 FLOOR, DIVISION NO.58, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE-560068, RESIDING AT NO.9, 21 CROSS SRI.RAMA TEMPLE ROAD, EJIPURA, VIVEK NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560047. 560047

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.ABHILASH SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

ADDL.R2 AVANEE AGED 31 YEARS W/O. VAISAKH, MAZHUVANCHERI VEEDU, MARANGATTUMUKKU, VELLAPARA P.O., PRAMADOM, KONNY, PATHANAMTHITTA-689691. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/07/2020 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 1/2020.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶14

OTHERS PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.AJITH MURALI SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 3794/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 10th day of November 2020

¶21

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶22

The applicant is the second accused in Crime No.225/2020 of Konni Police Station for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant in furtherance of common intention with the first accused dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to offer her a job visa in the Ministry of Health, Kuwait as a Nurse and induced her to deliver a sum of Rs.8 lakhs to the accused together. Rs.6 lakhs was transferred to the account of the first accused, while a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was transferred to the account of the second accused, who is running an Institution at Bangalore.

¶24

The applicant states that he is innocent and that he has received only Rs.2 lakhs and that was intended to give English Language training to the de facto complainant to appear for TOEFL and IELTS examinations before she joined for the job in Kuwait and that because of the pandemic situation, the training could not be imparted and the applicant offers to return the money, at the earliest, to the de facto complainant. It is also stated that

¶25

BA 3794/2020

¶26

¶27

the first accused has already been released on bail. Hence, the applicant also seeks anticipatory bail.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, who was impleaded, and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The alleged transaction took place in the year 2018, to be precised on 23.11.2018. The amount was transferred to the account of the applicant. Admittedly, no training whatsoever has been imparted by the applicant. The statement that it was because of the pandemic situation that the training could not be imparted does not appear to be true because the amount was transferred in the year 2018 and the pandemic started only in the beginning of 2020. However, the de facto complainant also slept over her rights for nearly two years and the complaint was made only in the year 2020. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He has offered to return the amount and therefore, I find that custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary. There is sufficient proof of transfer of the amount through the Bank account and therefore, nothing is to be recovered from him. Hence, the applicant is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail.

¶30

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within three weeks. In the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

¶31

¶32

BA 3794/2020

¶33

thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following further conditions:

¶34

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

T P Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T P Joseph 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

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Indrajith Vs State of Kerala

Thrishna Vs State of Kerala

Raji Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Akhil P R Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Khan Vs State of Kerala