Allowed

Hilda Sesil v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2020Bail Appl./4302/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed three concurrent bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr.PC for offences under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, and IPC involving cheque dishonour. The court granted bail on stringent conditions requiring surrender for interrogation and restricting foreign travel.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications allowed; applicants directed to surrender for interrogation within two weeks; bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties.

Hilda Sesil Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4299 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.668/2020 OF Wadakkancherry Police Station , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/A2:

¶8

SESIL JOSEPH AGED 48 YEARS S/O. K.V.JOSEPH, KANDODO HOUSE, VEETTIKKAL P.O., MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682314 682314

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WADAKKENCHERY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 682031

¶12

2 SHAJON.K.R., AGED 46 YEARS S/O. RAPPAI, KOKKADAN HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, THRISSUR, PIN-680 302

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C N PRABHAKARAN SR PP , SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4302/2020, Bail Appl..4906/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶22

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942

¶23

Bail Appl..No.4302 OF 2020

¶24

CRIME NO.668/2020 OF Wadakkancherry Police Station , Palakkad

¶25

PETITIONER/A3:

¶26

HILDA SESIL, AGED 46 YEARS W/O. SESIL JOSEPH, KANDODI HOUSE, VEETTIKKAL P.O. MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM 682 314.

¶27

BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON

¶28

RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶29

1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKULAM 682 031.

¶30

2 SHOJAN.K. R. S/O. RAPPAI, KOKKADAN HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, THRISSUR 680 302.

¶31

R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH R1 BY SRI.C N PRABHAKARAN SR PP , SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶32

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2020, ALONG WITH BA Nos.4299/2020 AND 4906/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

¶34

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶38

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942

¶39

Bail Appl..No.4906 OF 2020

¶40

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1568/2020 DATED 03-082020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD

¶41

CRIME NO.668/2020 OF Wadakkancherry Police Station , Palakkad

¶42

PETITIONER/A1:

¶43

SHIJU ANDREWS, AGED 50 YEARS KALATHIL HOUSE, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL NAGAR, VADAKKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678683.

¶44

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS

¶45

SHRI. RALPH RETI JOHN

¶46

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶47

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

¶48

*ADDL.R2 SHOJAN K R, AGED 45 YEARS S/O RAPPAYI, KOKKADAN VEEDU,MANNAMPETTA VATTANTHARA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680302

¶49

*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 19/8/2020 IN CRL MA 1/2020

¶50

R1 R1 BY SRI.C N PRABHAKARAN SR PP , SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH

¶51

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2020, ALONG WITH BA Nos.4299/2020 and 4302/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

¶53

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶54

O R D E R

¶55

[ Bail Appl..4299/2020, Bail Appl..4302/2020 and Bail Appl..4906/2020 ]

¶56

Dated this the 14th day of September 2020

¶57

These are applications seeking anticipatory bail filed

¶58

under Section 438 Cr.PC.

¶59

The applicant in BA No.4906/2020 is the first accused,

¶60

while the applicants in BA Nos.4299/2020 and 4302/2020

¶61

are accused 2 and 3, respectively, in Crime No.668/2020 of

¶62

Wadakkancherry Police Station for having allegedly

¶63

committed offences punishable under Section 7 of the

¶64

Kerala Money Lenders' Act, 1958 and under Section 3 of the

¶65

Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 and

¶66

under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The applicants

¶67

apprehend arrest and hence seek anticipatory bail in the

¶68

¶69

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶70

aforesaid Crime. The first accused had already filed an

¶71

application before the Sessions Court as Crl.MC No.1568/2020 under Section 438 Cr.PC. But the same was dismissed vide order at Annexure-1. Hence, he has approached this Court for indulgence. Accused 2 and 3, who are husband and wife, have approached this Court directly seeking anticipatory bail.

¶72

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶73

applicants and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar appearing for the defacto complainant, who has been impleaded in all the three bail applications. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard.

¶74

Accused 2 and 3 and the defacto complainant had

¶75

entered into an agreement for sale of 17 acres of properties

¶76

¶77

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶78

in Chinnakkanal Village worth crores of rupees. The defacto

¶79

complainant paid some amount, that was available with him,

¶80

and the rest of the amount, i.e. Rs.1,41,20,000/-, was allegedly borrowed from the first accused, who is a licenced

¶81

money lender and the amount was handed over to accused

¶82

Nos.2 and 3 and the sale deed was executed.

¶83

The defacto complaint contends that he has

¶84

repaid the entire amount due to the first accused with exorbitant interest. However, the blank signed papers, blank signed white papers, blank signed cheques and other

¶85

documents handed over to the first accused as security for

¶86

the loan were not returned to him, despite the loan being completely repaid. In collusion, the first accused handed

¶87

over two blank signed cheques to accused 2 and 3 and they

¶88

¶89

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶90

filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable

¶91

Instruments Act for realisation of the amounts due as per the cheques, which were dishonoured on being presented

¶92

for collection before the Bank. The defacto complainant

¶93

would contend that there were no amounts due to accused 2

¶94

and 3 on account of the sale consideration and that is the

¶95

reason why they have executed sale deed, and therefore, the contention in the complaint filed under the NI Act that amounts were due from the defacto complainant cannot be

¶96

believed. It is further stated that the first accused has not

¶97

claimed the amount due from the defacto complainant

¶98

towards the loan. This would indicate that the applicants

¶99

were glove in hand in proceeding against the defacto

¶100

complainant. It is under such circumstances that the

¶101

¶102

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶103

defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police in

¶104

consequence of which, a search was also conducted in the

¶105

office of the first accused and his computer and hard disk

¶106

were seized. But, the other documents which have been

¶107

detailed in the objections filed by the defacto complainant could not be recovered. The first accused denies of having received any such documents as mentioned in the objection

¶108

filed by the defacto complainant.

¶109

The learned Prosecutor and the learned Senior

¶110

Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submit that

¶111

the applicants will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovery of the other documents which have been handed over to the first accused. No search has so far been conducted in the

¶112

¶113

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶114

premises of accused 2 and 3. Notice has not been issued to

¶115

the first accused to produce documents.

¶116

After having heard both sides and perused the

¶117

records available, I find that the first accused is not

¶118

implicated in any other case for having violated any law pertaining to money lending, except the complaints filed by the defacto complainant herein. There is no dispute that the

¶119

defacto complainant had a money transaction with the first

¶120

accused. The dispute is regarding discharge of debt and if

¶121

the contention continues, it will ultimately have to be settled

¶122

by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

¶123

The allegations regarding charging of exorbitant

¶124

interest and cheating will have to be determined in this

¶125

Crime. However, the fact regarding collusion between the

¶126

¶127

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶128

three accused and handing over the cheques entrusted to

¶129

the first accused to accused 2 and 3 for being used for the

¶130

purpose of filing a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, also will have to be enquired into. But, I am of the

¶131

opinion that any arrest or custodial interrogation of the accused, husband and wife, may be required for this purpose. There is no reason to believe that they will not

¶132

cooperate with the investigation or abscond. Under the circumstances, I find that they can be granted anticipatory bail, but on stringent conditions.

¶133

In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed and

¶134

the applicants are directed to surrender before the

¶135

investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation

¶136

and recoveries, if any, in the event of their being arrested,

¶137

¶138

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶139

they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for

¶140

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent

¶141

sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:

¶142

(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer

¶143

on all alternate Mondays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of three months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier, for the purpose of interrogation, and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶144

(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

¶145

Court. They shall not go abroad without seeking permission

¶146

¶147

BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020

¶148

of the jurisdictional court.

¶149

(iii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate

¶150

or influence the witnesses.

¶151

(iv) They shall not get involved in any similar

¶152

offence during the currency of the bail.

¶153

In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions,

¶154

the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional

¶155

court for cancellation of the bail.

¶156

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶157

Hilda Sesil v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hilda Sesil 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

Pushpa Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Kalesh.a.v Vs State of Kerala

Nahas Vs State of Kerala

Augustine v.a., Vs State of Kerala

Renjini T.V Vs State of Kerala