Allowed

Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Sept 2020Bail Appl./4106/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed two anticipatory bail applications filed by co-accused in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. The court imposed specific conditions regarding surrender, passport surrender, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on conditions: surrender within two weeks, secure individual bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, surrender passports, appear at specified intervals, and not tamper with evidence or t

Ajith 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

TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4106 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1336/2020 DATED 02-07-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

CRIME NO.123/2020 OF Ottapalam Police Station , Palakkad

¶8

PETITIONER/A1:

¶9

AJITH KUMAR AGED 43 YEARS S/O.SUKUMARAN, EDAMPADATH HOUSE, MULAKKAL TEMPLE ROAD, NEDUMPARA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-679 531. 679531

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 SHIJU K. AGED25, S/O.CHANDRAN, KURUMKULATHIL HOUSE, CHOROTTOOR, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.SARATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) R2 BY ADV. SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4162/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

BA 4106 & 4162/2020

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶23

TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942

¶24

Bail Appl..No.4162 OF 2020

¶25

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1336/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶26

CRIME NO.123/2020 OF Ottapalam Police Station , Palakkad

¶27

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶28

PRASANTH, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.SASEENDRABABU, NELELNIKKAT HOUSE, VELLICHIRA, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 575.

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶30

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶31

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

¶32

2 SHIJU K. AGED 25, S/O.CHANDRAN, KURUMKULATHIL HOUSE, CHOROTTOOR, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD.

¶33

R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER, SR PP R2 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.KIRANLAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.S.SARATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) R2 BY ADV. SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

¶34

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4106/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 4106 & 4162/2020

O R D E R

[ Bail Appl..4106/2020, Bail Appl..4162/2020 ] Dated this the 8th day of September 2020

¶39

These are applications seeking anticipatory bail.

¶40

The applicant in BA No.4106/2020 is the first accused, while the applicant in BA No.4162/2020 is the second accused in Crime No.123/2020 of Ottapalam Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case in brief, is that in furtherance of common intention to cheat the defacto complainant, the accused promised to arrange visa for him on payment of Rs.7,00,000/- and thus the aforesaid amount was collected by them in installments till 16.5.2019 and they failed to arrange the visa and cheated the defacto complainant. The applicants state that the first accused is a Government servant and is a person having good reputation with no criminal antecedents. The second accused is his brother-in-law who runs a mobile phone shop at Pala and has got absolutely nothing to do with the

¶41

¶42

BA 4106 & 4162/2020

¶43

arrangement of visa. It is further stated that the defacto complainant and the first accused were friends and that the defacto complainant had on 9.3.2019 borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the second accused on recommendation of the first accused and he failed to return the said amount despite repeated demands and ultimately, Rs.1,20,000/- was repaid through the account of the second accused. Still some amount to be repaid by the defacto complainant. It is also stated that the defacto complainant's elder brother had married a lady named Arathi, who had disputes with her husband. The father of the said Arathi is a friend of the first accused, and he had interfered in their marital dispute, which led to some altercation between the defacto complainant and his brother on one side and the father of the aforesaid Arathi and the applicants on the other. In consequence of that incident, a crime was registered against the defacto complainant as Crime No.733/2018 of Ottapalam Police Station. The applicants totally disassociate themselves with the alleged incident of cheating and for arrangement of the visa.

¶44

The first accused is employed as a Senior Clerk in the

¶45

¶46

BA 4106 & 4162/2020

¶47

Office of the Special Tahsildar, Cochin Devaswom Board. There is no proof regarding payment of Rs.5,00,000/- as alleged by the defacto complainant, at present. According to him, it was paid in the presence of witnesses in cash, which he had collected from various relatives. However, there is proof regarding payment of Rs.1,20,000/- to the second accused by the defacto complainant through his account. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents, apart from this particular incident of allegedly cheating the defacto complainant. The first accused is a Government employee. There is no possibility of his absconding and he is willing to cooperate with the investigation. The second accused is the brother-in-law of the first accused and is conducting business at Pala. He also is not likely to abscond.

¶48

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the defacto complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶49

The apprehension of the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant is that the applicants may not cooperate with the investigation, for which conditions can be imposed.

¶50

¶51

BA 4106 & 4162/2020

¶52

In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation, in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

¶53

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

¶54

(ii) They shall surrender their passports before the investigating officer, which shall be produced before the jurisdictional court. And if they do not have passports, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the jurisdictional Court. They shall not go abroad without seeking permission of the jurisdictional court.

¶55

(iii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶56

(iv) They shall not get involved in any similar offence

¶57

BA 4106 & 4162/2020

¶58

¶59

during the currency of the bail.

¶60

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.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶63

Ajith Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith 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

Sidique Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil.P.P Vs State of Kerala

Stalin Vs State of Kerala

Thrideep Vs State of Kerala

Kilar Mazhoor K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Raveendran Vs State of Kerala