Allowed

Pranjith A.L. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Sept 2020Bail Appl./4085/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr PC filed by a accused in a cheating case involving a vehicle sale. The court found no reason to believe the applicant would abscond and imposed standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant directed to surrender within two weeks and released on bail on execution of bond and undertaking to comply with conditions.

Pranjith A.L. 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 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 2ND ASWINA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.4085 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.156/2020 OF Kulathupuzha Police Station , Kollam

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PRANJITH A.L. AGED 37 YEARS S/O.ANDIL KUMAR, PARAYANVILAKAM VEEDU, KANIYAMKUZHI, ARYANADU P.O., NEDUMANGADU TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT-695 542. 695542

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

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

¶11

2 MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SIVAN PILLAI, KAILASAM, KUMARAMKARIKKAM, KULATHUPUZHA, THINKALKARIKKAM VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM - 691 310.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SABU

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.4085 OF 2020 2

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 24th day of September 2020

¶19

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶20

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.156/2020 of Kulathupuzha Police Station for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Sections 420 of IPC.

¶21

The prosecution case in brief is that the applicant has approached the de facto complainant with dishonest intention to cheat and defraud him for the purpose of illegal gain made him believe that he intends to purchase the Excavator belonging to the complainant. The de facto complainant agreed to sell his Excavator to the applicant on payment of Rs.3,75,000/- in six installments and thereafter to pay the credit which was due to the bank on the said Excavator. However, the applicant repaid some installments to the de facto complainant and thereafter defaulted payment of the amounts but used the Excavator extensively and thereby extracted money by the said use without paying any amount to the applicant and the machine has now been rendered useless and the sensor, pump and all important spare parts of the

¶22

Bail Appl..No.4085 OF 2020 3

¶23

vehicle has been removed by the applicant. Thus the applicant had cheated the de facto complainant and committed the offence.

¶24

The applicant states that the allegation is not true and that he has paid all the amounts due as per the agreement. Therefore he has not committed any breach of the agreement. Moreover, there is a suit pending as OS No.96/2020 before the Nedumangad Munsiff Court. The dispute has to be decided by the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and the parties are bound by the decision of the Civil Court and therefore there was no intention to cheat the de facto complainant. Therefore, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, he has made a party to this bail application.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submits that it is very inception of the agreement that the applicant had intention only to use the vehicle extensively and extract money from that and thereafter he had no intention to either handover the vehicle to the de facto complainant or to pay the amounts extracted to the bank towards the loan. Therefore, he had with dishonest intention to cheat the

¶27

Bail Appl..No.4085 OF 2020 4

¶28

de facto complainant and induce the de facto complainant to deliver the extracted to him. The applicant submits that there was no such intention as alleged. Reading of the agreement would indicate that the applicant has only to pay six installments, which he had already paid as evidenced by the bank account statements, which he had produced. Therefore, there was no intention to cheat the de facto complainant and the

¶29

rest of the dispute is only to be settled by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, he may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶30

There is no record regarding any antecedents against the applicant. I do not find that there is any reason for him to abscond and not co-operate with the investigation. Certain conditions can be imposed. The Extractor is already handed over to the de facto complainant.

¶31

Therefore, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks and after interrogation and recovery if any, the applicant shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and

¶32

Bail Appl..No.4085 OF 2020 5

¶33

on following further conditions:

¶34

(i) He shall appear before the investigating officer on all Mondays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report, whichever is earlier.

¶35

(ii) He shall not also attempt to influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence.

¶36

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

¶37

In case of violation of any bail condition, the prosecution

¶38

is at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

SD/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

rmm

Pranjith A.L. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranjith A.L. 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

Sajan .S.S Vs Public Prosecutor

Sahadulla Vs State of Kerala

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala

Muthas @ Muthukutty Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Abdul Azeez.v.P Vs State of Kerala

Jophy.P.Jacob Vs State of Kerala