Allowed

Dhanesh Krishna v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Nov 2020Bail Appl./5228/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to husband and wife accused in a theft and mischief case. The court held the applicants could not be required to surrender without investigation despite voluntary vehicle repossession by the complainant under an agreement.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants directed to surrender within two weeks on execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for similar amount.

Dhanesh Krishna Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.5228 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1283/2020 OF Chengannoor Police Station , Alappuzha

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 DHANESH KRISHNA, AGED 38 YEARS, ANWAYAM HOUSE, KANNANAKUZHI MURI, THAMARAKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA – 690530.

¶9

2 ANU V., AGED 32 YEARS, ANWAYAM HOUSE, KANNANAKUZHI MURI, THAMARAKKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA – 690530.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 RETHNA KUMARI, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O BHADRAN NAIR, ANIL BHAVAN, KOZHUVALLOOR MURI, MULAKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR-689521.*

¶14

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 16/9/2020 IN CRL.MA 2/2020.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Bail Appl.No.5228 OF 2020

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Dated this the 12th day of November 2020

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

¶23

Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶24

The applicants are husband and wife and they are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.1283/2020 of Chengannoor Police Station for having allegedly committed the

¶25

offences punishable under Sections 379, 417, 424 and 425 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶26

The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶27

The 2nd applicant is the registered owner of a Mahindra

¶28

Xylo vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-22-D-5278. The vehicle

¶29

was obtained on hire-purchase from Cholamandalam Invest Finance, Kayamkulam. The vehicle was agreed to be sold to the defacto complainant on 05.09.2019 on receipt of Rs.50,000/- towards sale consideration and the defacto complainant had agreed to pay the entire amount due to

¶30

the financier. For that, the defacto complainant was

¶31

¶32

Bail Appl.No.5228 OF 2020

¶33

under obligation to deposit money into the account maintained by the 2nd applicant with the Federal Bank Ltd., Pathanamthitta Branch. The defacto complainant remitted Rs.10,500/- on 15.05.2020 towards tax payable for the vehicle and also a sum of Rs.1 lakh was allegedly spent for modification of the vehicle. The payment of some instalments due to the hire purchase was admittedly defaulted. On 28.06.2020 at about 3.00 AM, the applicants along with accused 3 and 4 in furtherance of common intention, stole the vehicle from the possession of the defacto complainant and also damaged the vehicle to the tune of Rs.15,000/- by committing mischief.

¶34

The applicants state that they are innocent and the allegations are not true. The agreement which was entered into between the applicants and the defacto complainant, produced as Annexure 2, indicates that on default of two instalments due, the 2nd applicant is at liberty to repossess the vehicle. It is only because the defacto complainant defaulted payment of the

¶35

¶36

Bail Appl.No.5228 OF 2020

¶37

instalments due on two occasions that the applicants had approached the police and consequently the defacto complainant voluntarily handed over the vehicle to the applicants stating that she is not in a position to repay the entire amount due to the financial institution. So repayment of the amount, which was

¶38

spent for the alleged modification and also two instalments she had paid and also the amount that she had remitted towards tax was to be returned. But the applicants did not repay the amount and consequently, this complaint was filed by the defacto complainant and the crime was registered. The applicants further stated that they do not have any criminal antecedents

¶39

and that the offence under Section 379 of the I.P.C. will not be attracted because it is not a case of theft, but a case of repossession of the vehicle as per

¶40

the agreement. Hence, the applicants seek anticipatory bail.

¶41

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and

¶42

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶43

¶44

Bail Appl.No.5228 OF 2020

¶45

The existence of Annexure 2 agreement is

¶46

admitted. The documents produced by the applicants would also suggest that the defacto complainant had only paid two instalments towards the hire purchase amount due. She had therefore defaulted the payment. As per the terms in the agreement, the applicants had

¶47

the right to repossess the vehicle. But however, it is admitted that the vehicle was repossessed not through any legal means. But the defacto complainant herself

¶48

had surrendered the vehicle voluntarily. These are matters which need to be investigated upon. Since the applicants do not have any criminal antecedents and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation, I

¶49

do not find any reason to see that the applicants may abscond or not cooperate with the investigation.

¶50

Hence, the applicants are entitled to a pre-arrested in this crime.

¶51

In the result, the bail application is allowed and

¶52

the applicants are directed to surrender before the

¶53

investigating officer within two weeks. After

¶54

¶55

Bail Appl.No.5228 OF 2020

¶56

interrogation and in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each,

¶57

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

¶58

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶59

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and

¶60

involved in any similar offences.

¶61

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Dhanesh Krishna v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanesh Krishna 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

State Bank of India Vs Arun Aravindan Nair

Manoj Radhakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Alavi M a Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Rajeesh Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala