Allowed

Alice Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Sept 2020Bail Appl./4307/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to a 70-year-old female accused, Alice Antony, who was accused of cheating in a land cultivation dispute. The court held bail was warranted due to her age, the nature of the dispute being civil, and lack of absconding risk.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on furnishing of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties each and compliance with conditions of cooperation and non-intimidation.

Alice Antony 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 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 26TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4307 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.860/2020 OF Erattupettah Police Station , Kottayam PETITIONERS/A1 & A2:

¶7

1 ALICE ANTONY, AGED 70 YEARS W/O. ANTONY, KUTTIYANICKAL (ITTIKUNNEL) HOUSE, ADIVARAM POST, POONJAR, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686582. 686582

¶8

2 JAICEMOL ANTONY, AGED 34 YEARS D/O. ANTONY, KUTTIYANICKAL (ITTIKUNNEL) HOUSE, ADIVARAM POST, POONJAR, THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686582.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH T.JOHN

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION, ERATTUPETTA POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686121.

¶13

3 SHYNI JOSEPH, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. REJI THOMAS, NADUTHOTTIYIL HOUSE, POONJAR POST, POONJAR THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686581.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 4307/2020

O R D E R

Dated this the 17th day of September 2020

¶21

This is an application seeking anticipatory bail.

¶22

Applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.860/2020 of Erattupetta Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The third accused is the sister of the second accused and the daughter of the first accused. The applicants/accused 1 & 2 apprehend arrest and therefore have filed this bail application. Now, the second accused has gone abroad and therefore, the application for anticipatory bail is confined only to the first accused (first applicant).

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the third respondent/defacto complainant had entered into an agreement for cultivating the land belonging to the applicants for five years @ Rs.30,000/- per year as annual rent. An advance of Rs.30,000/- was

¶24

BA 4307/2020

¶25

¶26

also paid to the first applicant by the husband of the third respondent. However, on 20.6.2020, when they went to the property for preparing the land, the accused obstructed the work and thereby the defacto complainant sustained the loss of Rs.57,500/-, which had to be paid as rent to the Hitachi tiller which was engaged for clearing the land and thus, including the advance that was paid to the first applicant, the defacto complainant and her husband sustained a loss of a sum of Rs.87,500/-. Hence, a complaint was filed before the Police and crime registered.

¶27

The applicants would contend that the property belongs to all the accused together and the alleged purported agreement was signed only by the first applicant and the de facto complainant. The daughters of the first applicant, however, did not consent to the handing over of the land and without their consent, the land could not have been handed over to the defacto complainant and her husband. The defacto complainant had sent a lawyer notice at Annexure-II seeking compensation, and to that, the applicants have sent a reply

¶28

¶29

BA 4307/2020

¶30

which is at Annexure-III. Consequently, the defacto complainant has also approached the civil court seeking damages. The applicants would, therefore, contend that the dispute between the applicants and the defacto complainant is purely civil in nature and there is no amount of any criminal or dishonest intention to cheat the defacto complainant and, therefore, they seek anticipatory bail.

¶31

The first accused is a lady aged 70 years. The second accused has already gone abroad and the third accused is also abroad and therefore, only the first accused could be arrested in connection with the crime. Considering the facts that the first accused is a lady aged 70 years and there is no possibility of her absconding and the present pandemic situation, I find that she is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail, as long as she cooperates with the investigation.

¶32

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the first applicant/first accused is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation, in the event

¶33

¶34

BA 4307/2020

¶35

of her being arrested, she shall be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following further conditions:

¶36

(i) She shall appear before the investigating officer as and

¶37

when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶38

(ii) She shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.

¶39

(iii) She shall not get involved in any similar offence during

¶40

the currency of the bail.

¶41

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

¶42

is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the

¶43

bail.

¶44

Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶45

Alice Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alice Antony 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reena Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Junaid Vs State of Kerala

Reena Vs State of Kerala

Jayaraj, Vs State of Kerala

Jifsal C B Vs Union of India

Mohammed Anwar T M Vs Union of India