Allowed

Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Nov 2020Bail Appl./3814/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge Bench of the Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to an accused charged with cheating under IPC Sections 420 and 34. The court held the case to be a money transaction dispute, noted no criminal history, and found no risk of absconding. The applicant was directed to surrender and execute a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks; bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Sreekumar 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

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3814 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1344/2018 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SREEKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, KAVAREZHATHU HOUSE, PALACKAL, THEVALAKARA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN-690524.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 RAVICHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, AYANIKKATTU VEEDU, MYNAGAPPALLY NORTH, KIDANGAYAM KANNIMEL, SOORANADU SOUTH, KOLLAM-690522 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.No.3814 OF 2020

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 12th day of November, 2020

¶19

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶20

The applicant is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.1344 of 2020 of Sooranadu Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶21

The applicant had allegedly promised employment to the defacto complainant in Kerala Minerals & Metals Limited, Chavara and induced him to deliver a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the year 2011. The applicant thereafter failed to return the money of providing the employment and thus cheated the defacto complainant. The applicant states that he is innocent. But, he admits that he had borrowed some money from the defacto complainant promising to repay that amount within a time. The defacto complainant demanded more interest although the principal was paid and that led to a dispute between the defacto

¶22

B.A.No.3814 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

complainant and the applicant and consequently, the defacto complainant also issued a lawyer notice demanding the amount from the applicant in the year 2019 . He sent a befitting reply stating the correct state of affairs into that lawyer notice. The defacto complainant has not filed a suit for realisation of the amount allegedly due from the applicant. This complaint alleging an offence of cheating has been filed by the defacto complainant to somehow extract money from the applicant. The applicant states that he has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation and hence, he may be released on bail

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The defacto complainant did not appear despite notice being served upon him.

¶26

The applicant has no criminal antecedents. The transaction even going by the complaint filed by the defacto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, indicates that it is a pure money transaction and that the applicant had

¶27

B.A.No.3814 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

allegedly borrowed the money from the defacto complainant. It is for the defacto complainant to prove it by evidence that it was not a money transaction, but a transaction to cheat the defacto complainant inducing him to pay money for employment. The applicant is not an employee of KMML. And, therefore, it cannot be believed that he was in a position to await employment in KMML Limited, Chavara. The incident occurred in the year 2011 and till now the applicant has not been arrested. And, therefore, it cannot be believed that he may abscond or not co-operate with the investigation. Under the circumstances, the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶30

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a 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:

¶31

B.A.No.3814 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

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

¶34

(ii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and

¶35

tamper with evidence.

¶36

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

¶37

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶38

The bail application is allowed.

¶39

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶40

NR/12/11/20

Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreekumar 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

State Bank of India Vs Arun Aravindan Nair

Manoj Radhakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Alavi M a Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala