Allowed

Prince @ Hari v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2020Bail Appl./4016/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C concerning an alleged cheating offence (Section 420 IPC), the High Court of Kerala, considering the lack of criminal antecedents and willingness to cooperate, granted bail on conditions including surrender within two weeks and raising bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted, surrender before investigating officer within two weeks, bond of Rs.1,00,000 with sureties.

Prince @ Hari 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 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4016 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1881/2020 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

CRIME NO.1031/2020 OF Cherthala Police Station, Alappuzha

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(A1, A2 AND A3):

¶9

1 PRINCE @ HARI AGED 30 YEARS S/O. NATARAJAN, VELIKKAKATHU HOUSE, KALAVAMKODAM P O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.

¶10

2 V.V. NATARAJAN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VELIKKAKATHU HOUSE, KALAVAMKODAM P O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.

¶11

3 PREMJITH V.N AGED 37 YEARS S/O. NATARAJAN, VELIKKAKATHU HOUSE, KALAVAMKODAM P O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.A.S.SHAMMY RAJ

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE, INVESTIGATING OFFICER & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERTHALA POLICE STATION, CHERTHALA P O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

¶16

Bail Appl..No.4016 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

3 JANESH AGED 34 YEARS S/O. JANARDHANAN, PARUTHIKKAATTU VEEDU, ERAMALLOOR P O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688537.

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI.DIPU.R R3 BY ADV. SRI.SANAL P.RAJ R3 BY ADV. SMT.DHANYA BABU R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.PRIYA SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Bail Appl..No.4016 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Dated this the 6th day of August 2020

¶25

This is an application filed under Section

¶26

438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶27

The 2^nd applicant is the father of

¶28

applicants 1 and 3. All the three applicants are

¶29

accused in Crime No.1031/2020 of Cherthala Police

¶30

Station, Alappuzha for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶31

The crime was registered in consequence to

¶32

a private complaint filed by the 3^rd

¶33

respondent/defacto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala which

¶34

was forwarded for investigation under Section

¶35

156(3) of the Cr.P.C to the Sub Inspector of

¶36

Police, Cherthala Police Station.

¶37

The prosecution case in brief is that, on

¶38

24.05.2015, the 1^st applicant made the defacto

¶39

Bail Appl..No.4016 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

complainant and two of his relatives believe that he was working in the Nedumbassery Airport in the Ground Handling Department and that there are vacancies in the said department and he could arrange for jobs and demanded a sum of Rs.6 lakhs each from them. Consequence to that, a sum of

¶42

Rs.12,27,000/- was paid as advance to the applicants. However, the jobs could not be

¶43

arranged as agreed. The amounts were appropriated and the defacto complainant and his relatives cheated.

¶44

The applicants would contend that, the

¶45

allegations are false, and that the 1^st applicant

¶46

was married to a cousin of the defacto

¶47

complainant, and their marriage failed. In consequence to that they obtained a divorce by a

¶48

mutual consent in the year 2019. The marital

¶49

relationship between the 1^st applicant and his wife

¶50

had run into rough weather in consequence to his

¶51

Bail Appl..No.4016 OF 2020

¶52

¶53

wife having an allegedly illicit relationship with someone else. The dispute between them continued for a fairly long time. It is pointed out that in

¶54

the year 2018, the applicants had allegedly entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant and others agreeing to repay the amount which was obtained by him in the year 2015. The applicant would contend that no sane man would acknowledge a time barred debt. Therefore, it is highly improbable that an agreement to that effect

¶55

may have been executed by the applicants. It is suggested that the said agreement relied upon by the defacto complainant and others is a forged and

¶56

concocted one. The applicants have no other criminal antecedents. The 2^nd applicant is a senior citizen. Considering the pandemic situation, no custodial interrogation is necessary, and they are willing to co-operate with the investigation and pray that they may be granted a per-arrest bail in

¶57

Bail Appl..No.4016 OF 2020

¶58

¶59

this matter.

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶61

applicants and the defacto complainant and also

¶62

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶63

The applicants admittedly do not have any

¶64

criminal antecedents. The applicants are willing to co-operate with the investigation. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant has vehemently opposed the granting of bail to the applicants. They need not be subjected to any custodial interrogation, and considering the pandemic situation, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants on certain conditions.

¶65

In the result the application is allowed,

¶66

and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of their

¶67

being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One

¶68

Bail Appl..No.4016 OF 2020

¶69

lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each,

¶70

for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶71

investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶72

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶73

ii. They shall appear before the

¶74

investigating officer as and when called for.

¶75

iii. They shall not get involved in similar

¶76

offences during the bail period.

¶77

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶78

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

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Prince @ Hari v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince @ Hari 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

Vipin Kumar Vs Public Prosecutor

Ullas Sebastian Vs State Ofkerala

Midhun Krishna Vs State of Kerala

Fahad Vs State of Kerala

Anoop M.R. Vs State of Kerala

Visakh, Vs State of Kerala