Disposed

Bhadran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Nov 2020Bail Appl./4130/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Kerala noted that while the applicants claimed innocence, the delay in lodging a separate complaint raised doubts. The Court held that swapping ornaments could not be entirely ruled out and directed surrender for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; applicants directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks.

Bhadran 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 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4130 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.214/2020 OF Agali Police Station, Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 BHADRAN

¶9

RAJEEV COLONY, AGALI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PALAKKAD, PIN-678581.

¶10

2 SUDHA, W/O.BHADRAN, RAJEEV COLONY, AGALI, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AGALI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN678581.

¶15

3 ADDL.R3 JINEESH KURIAN AGED 39 YEARS S/O KURIAN, ERUMATHANATHA HOUSE, JELLIPARA P.O, KURUKKANKUNDU, PALAKKAD, IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 4.8.2020 IN CRL.MA 1/2O2O.

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUSEEL M.MENON SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No.4130 OF 2020

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Dated this the 3rd day of November 2020

¶22

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶23

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶24

The applicants are husband and wife, who are

¶25

accused in Crime No.214/2020 of Agali Police

¶26

Station, Palakkad, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶27

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶28

applicants had allegedly pledged 332 grams of gold ornaments belonging to the 2nd applicant in SBI, Agali branch and borrowed a sum of Rs.7,90,000/-.

¶29

The amount was outstanding and the SBI asked them to clear the debts. They approached the de facto complainant which is a finance company receiving gold ornaments as a pledge. It is stated that the

¶30

Manager of the de facto complainant company accompanied them and the amount due to the SBI for

¶31

Bail Appl..No.4130 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

clearing the loan was paid through bank transfer.

¶34

The applicants took back the ornaments and thereafter accompanied the Manager to the private finance company and handed it over to the finance company as a pledge. on apprising the gold ornaments produced by the applicants, it was found to be spurious and accordingly, this complaint was

¶35

filed and the Crime registered against the applicants.

¶36

The applicants contend that they had

¶37

pledged original gold ornaments in SBI and after

¶38

the bank appraiser was convinced about the genuineness of gold, the loan was sanctioned. The SBI insisted on clearing the debt. The applicants approached the de facto complainant for helping closure of the loan with the SBI and agreed to hand over the gold ornaments to them. Accordingly,

¶39

bank transfer was made by the de facto complainant

¶40

company to the SBI and the applicant went to the

¶41

Bail Appl..No.4130 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

SBI bank on 24th of June, 2020 and got back the

¶44

ornaments. It is stated that on the same day they

¶45

accompanied the Manager of the de facto complainant bank and handed it over to the financial institution without any alteration or change of the ornaments. However, the appraiser who examined the gold ornaments found that it was

¶46

spurious gold and accordingly the present

¶47

complaint was lodged.

¶48

The applicants state that they are

¶49

innocent. The 2nd accused had on 27.06.2020 filed a complaint before the Police SP regarding the aforesaid incident and the alteration of the gold.

¶50

They expect that something untoward has happened

¶51

in the bank itself and that their genuine ornaments were replaced. Hence, they had made a complaint to find out the persons responsible for the substitution of the ornaments. The applicants

¶52

submit that they may be released on anticipatory

¶53

Bail Appl..No.4130 OF 2020

¶54

¶55

bail.

¶56

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶57

applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶58

The learned counsel for the applicants

¶59

submits that they had made Annexure 1 complaint to the District Police Chief, Palakkad on 27.06.2020 and it would suggest that they had no mala fide in pledging the gold ornaments before the de facto complainant institution. The complaint by the de facto complainant was made subsequent to that. The applicants, therefore, submit that more

¶60

investigation has to be conducted in this regard.

¶61

The learned counsel appearing for the de

¶62

facto complainant submits that the gold ornaments which were released from the bank was entrusted to the applicants and after having acknowledged receipt, it was they who carried it to the financial institution’s office and handed it over to them. It is possible that they had swapped the

¶63

¶64

Bail Appl..No.4130 OF 2020

¶65

original gold ornaments with duplicate ones which were entrusted to the de facto compliant and therefore, it is a clear case of cheating and the applicants are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶66

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that

¶67

the applicants had confessed to the investigating officer, and had agreed that the loan amount would be cleared within a short period. The alleged handing over of the gold ornaments took place on the 24th of June, 2020, whereas the complaint which was filed by the 2nd applicant before the District Police Chief was on 27.06.2020. There is a three days delay in between. The reasons for that are not clarified.

¶68

Under the circumstances, I find that the

¶69

possibility of the applicants in swapping the original gold ornaments with duplicate ones cannot be ruled out entirely in this stage. The applicant

¶70

will have to co-operate with the investigation,

¶71

Bail Appl..No.4130 OF 2020

¶72

for which their interrogation is most essential. The applicants are therefore directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks.

¶73

In the event of their being arrested, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where they are at liberty to apply for regular bail, and the said bail application shall be considered by the jurisdictional court and preferably disposed of on the very same day, keeping in view also the proviso under Section 437 IPC as far as the 2nd applicant is concerned as alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and other attending circumstances.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Bhadran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhadran 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

Cristambel Jonson Vs Public Prosecutor

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Anandu Ghosh a Vs State of Kerala

Sreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Sreemathi Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Muralidharan Vs State of Kerala