Allowed

Hareesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2020Bail Appl./5052/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications filed by accused persons in a case alleging cheating by breach of an agreement concerning property transfer and pathway surrender were allowed as anticipatory bail. The court found the dispute civil in nature with no prima facie case requiring custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail allowed; surrender directed within two weeks; upon arrest, bail on Rs.1,00,000 bond with sureties subject to conditions against influencing witnesses and committing similar offences.

Hareesh Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942 Bail Appl.No.5052 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.1121/2019 OF Thrikkakara Police Station , Ernakulam

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

HAREESH AGED 30 YEARS PIRAMBILLIKUDY HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM – 682021.

¶8

BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031. 2* ADV.R.RENJITH AIKKARA HOUSE, THURUTHY.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, VENGOOR WEST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. *IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.2/2020 R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.5053/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Bail Appl.Nos.5052 & 5053 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶16

PRESENT

¶17

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶18

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 1ST ASWINA, 1942

¶19

Bail Appl..No.5053 OF 2020

¶20

CRIME NO.1121/2019 OF Thrikkakara Police Station , Ernakulam

¶21

PETITIONER/S:

¶22

MARY ALPHONSE AGED 66 YEARS, KATTADIYIL HOUSE, VALLATHOL ROAD, VADACODE, P.O. THRIKKAKARA – 682022.

¶23

BY ADV. DR.SEBASTIAN CHAMPAPPILLY

¶24

RESPONDENT/S:

¶25

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

¶26

2 ADV.R. RENJITH, AIKKARA HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683545.*

¶27

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020

¶28

R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP R2 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHAN V.NAIR

¶29

OTHERS PRESENT:

¶30

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR PP

¶31

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.5052/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

Bail Appl.Nos.5052 & 5053 OF 2020

¶33

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

[ Bail Appl.5052/2020, Bail Appl.5053/2020 ] Dated this the 23rd day of September 2020

¶36

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

¶37

The applicant in B.A.No.5053/2020 is the 1st accused and the applicant in B.A.No.5052/2020 is the 2nd accused in Crime No.1121/2019 of Thrikkakara Police

¶38

Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418 and 420 read with 34 of I.P.C.

¶39

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶40

applicants had entered into Annexure-2 agreement with the defacto complainant concerning the transfer of

¶41

property. Instead of retaining the disputed pathway as a private pathway, the same was surrendered by the

¶42

applicants to the Municipality, and therefore, they

¶43

have committed the breach of the agreement.

¶44

Bail Appl.Nos.5052 & 5053 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

O.S.No.1013/2019 was filed before the Munsiff’s Court, Ernakulam and it is also submitted that the suit has

¶47

now been decreed by way of compromise and that the

¶48

parties are striving to comply with the decision taken in the decree and that the same is in progress.

¶49

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants,

¶50

de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶51

Prime facie , the dispute appears to be based

¶52

on Annexure-2 agreement and its compliance/violation.

¶53

However, the defacto complainant has raised an

¶54

allegation that the accused had cheated them by not complying with the undertaking in the agreement. The

¶55

investigating officer will have to consider the allegations made in the complaint of the defacto complainant. I find no reason to hold that the

¶56

applicants may not co-operate with the investigation and there is also no possibility of their absconding.

¶57

The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents.

¶58

Hence, custodial interrogation of the applicants is

¶59

Bail Appl.Nos.5052 & 5053 OF 2020

¶60

¶61

found to be not necessary. Under the circumstances, they are entitled to a pre-arrest bail.

¶62

In the result, the bail applications are allowed

¶63

and the applicants are directed to surrender before the

¶64

investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and recovery, if any, and in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on

¶65

the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one

¶66

lakh only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶67

investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶68

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate

¶69

witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶70

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating

¶71

officer as and when called for; and

¶72

(iii) During the bail period, they shall not get

¶73

involved in any similar offences.

¶74

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the

¶75

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for

¶76

Bail Appl.Nos.5052 & 5053 OF 2020

¶77

¶78

cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Hareesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hareesh 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

Anil Kumar a. v. Vs State of Kerala

Joe Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Madhu Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Sajan .S.S Vs Public Prosecutor

Sahadulla Vs State of Kerala

Mary Alphonse Vs State of Kerala