Disposed

Sunny Cleetus v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Nov 2020Bail Appl./5099/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 420 IPC, the Hon'ble Court refused anticipatory bail to the applicant, directing his surrender. The Court found specific evidence of money transfer essential for custodial interrogation to clarify the applicant's role in the alleged economic offence.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; applicant directed to surrender before Investigating Officer within two weeks.

Sunny Cleetus 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

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5099 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1926/2020 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SUNNY CLEETUS, AGED 34 YEARS, PRE SETTLEMENT COLONY, SNEHATHEERAM NAGAR, PALLITHOTTAM, KOLLAM PIN - 691006

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031 2 BEENA GANAPATHY, AGED 58 YEARS, NTV NAGAR 12, KARPOORACHERIYIL , VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM PIN-691010

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN – SR.PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.No.5099 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 06th day of November, 2020

¶20

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶21

The applicant is the 1^st accused in Crime No.1926/2020

¶22

of Kollam East Police Station, Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶23

The applicant, in furtherance of common intention with the 2^nd accused, induced the defacto complainant in this case, to contribute sums of money promising that her son would be provided with a job in Australia. Similarly, amounts were collected from others also, promising jobs in Armenia and Australia. There is specific evidence regarding the transfer of money to the account of the applicant as also the 2^nd accused. The applicant contends that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. He himself was the victim of cheating and that he was taken to Armenia by a person named Riyas, to whom he had paid huge sums of money. He was not provided with a regular job and had to work in a crew ship without any salary. The money allegedly collected by him was

¶24

B.A.No.5099 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

handed over to the aforesaid Riyas and others and that he has himself not been enriched by the act of inducement. Hence, he prays that he may be granted pre-arrest bail.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The defacto complainant was served with notice but did not appear. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, it is understood that there is specific evidence regarding the transfer of amounts to the account of the applicant and also to the account of the 2^nd accused. This would indicate that he is not completely innocent as claimed by him. There was no reason for him to have received the amounts if he could not himself arrange the jobs as stated. Under the circumstances, I find that custodial interrogation of the applicant is most essential. It would also offer him an opportunity to clarify regarding the extent of his role in the alleged cheating. The persons named by him are not made accused. In case, he is having evidence, they also could be impleaded. For that purpose also, custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential. Being an economic offence, I find that the decision of the apex court in P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [2019 KHC 6886 SC : (2019) 9 SCC 24]

¶29

B.A.No.5099 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

would apply and the applicant cannot be granted the relief of anticipatory bail in this case.

¶32

In the result, the application is disposed of, with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the very same day.

¶33

NR/06/11/20

Sunny Cleetus v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunny Cleetus 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiji P R Vs State of Kerala

Hrishikradh@ Sagar Vs State of Kerala

Afsal Vs State of Kerala

Krishnan Nair N Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala