Allowed

Jeeja Bose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Nov 2020Bail Appl./5513/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. The court found no reason to believe the applicants would interfere with investigation or flee, noting their lack of criminal antecedents, and granted pre-arrest bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants directed to surrender within two weeks and released on bail upon execution of bonds along with sureties.

Jeeja Bose 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

MONDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5513 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.568/2020 OF ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 JEEJA BOSE AGED 48 YEARS 2B2, NATIONAL BUILDERS, SUNNY ESTATE, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM 682025

¶9

2 JOSEPH BOSE AGED 55 YEARS 2B2, NATIONAL BUILDERS, SUNNY ESTATE, MAMANGALM, PALARIVATTOM P.O, ERNAKULAM 682025

¶10

3 SOLAMON JOHN AGED 48 YEARS NADUVILA VEEDU, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM 682025

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ELAMAKKARA POLICE STATION, PALARIVATTOM. 682025

¶15

Bail Appl..No.5513 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

3 SAM C. GEORGE AGED 43 YEARS S/O GEORGE ABRAHAM, CHAKKALAYIL HOUSE, UNIVERSITY P.O, COCHIN . 682022

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl..No.5513 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 9th day of November 2020

¶24

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶25

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶26

The applicants are the accused 1 to 3 in Crime

¶27

No.568/2020 of Elamakkara Police Station, Ernakulam, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The first applicant is the wife of the second applicant and the third applicant is

¶28

alleged to be a Director in the company run by the applicants together.

¶29

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶30

de facto complainant was in dire need of money to conduct his sister's marriage. He, therefore,

¶31

approached the applicants for help and

¶32

understanding his requirements, the applicants dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to

¶33

pledge his property before the Canara Bank,

¶34

Bail Appl..No.5513 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

Edappally branch and they obtained a loan of Rs.75,00,000/- from the bank. Rs.45,00,000/- was

¶37

immediately handed over to the de facto

¶38

complainant for his own utilization, the remaining 30,00,000/-was allegedly utilized by the applicants for the purpose of the company and appropriated it. The arrangement between the defacto complainant and the applicants was that the defacto complainant would be paying Rs.45,000/- to the applicants for the purpose of

¶39

repayment of the amounts. He has to pay Rs.30,000/. Thus all together a sum of Rs.75,000/has to be paid towards the repayment of the loan.

¶40

However, despite having received money from the defacto complainant for repayment of the loan, the applicants misappropriated that amount and never paid any amount towards the repayment of the loan. The bank took appropriate action for defaulting the repayment, the property was preceded against.

¶41

Bail Appl..No.5513 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

Since the property belonged to the defacto

¶44

complainant, he was forced to close the loan by making a total payment of Rs.95,00,000/- to the

¶45

bank. The defacto complainant realized that he had been cheated by the applicants and that at the very inception of the agreement they had this intention to cheat him.

¶46

The applicants would contend that the

¶47

company named “Fabtech” which had allegedly helped the de facto complainant to obtain the loan was

¶48

being conducted not by the applicants together as alleged, but by the 3rd accused alone. It was a firm in which the accused Nos.1 and 2 had nothing

¶49

to do with. The 3rd accused was acquainted with the de facto complainant and they had arranged for a loan and the amount which was allegedly taken by the company was actually spent for the firm and

¶50

the partnership deed is produced as Annexure-I,

¶51

which indicates that the accused 1 and 2 have

¶52

¶53

Bail Appl..No.5513 OF 2020

¶54

absolutely no connection with the firm. The de

¶55

facto complainant is in fact made one of the partners of the firm and that he had mortgaged his

¶56

property as a partner of the firm and accused 1 and 2 had nothing to do with it. Regarding the repayment of the amount by the de facto complainant, there are absolutely no materials

¶57

available. It appears to be a breach of the agreement between the de facto complainant and the 3rd accused as evidenced by Annexure-I.

¶58

The prosecution case is that it is a

¶59

company, but Annexure-I would clearly prove that it is a firm of which the de facto complainant is

¶60

also a partner. Partners of the firm are jointly and severally liable for any actions of the firm.

¶61

To that extent, the de facto complainant is also

¶62

liable. The case of the de facto complainant is

¶63

that he had borrowed money for personal purposes

¶64

cannot be readily accepted in view of the fact

¶65

Bail Appl..No.5513 OF 2020

¶66

¶67

that he is a partner in the firm. That apart, he

¶68

has himself acquitted that he has received Rs.45,00,000/- for his personal use.

¶69

Under the circumstances, much investigation

¶70

will have to be conducted to unravel the truth in this case. I find no reason that the applicants will not co-operate with the investigation and

¶71

moreover, they do not have any criminal antecedents. Under the circumstances, I find that the applicants are entitled to pre-arrest bail.

¶72

In the result the application is allowed

¶73

and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks,

¶74

and after interrogation in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on the execution of bonds for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶75

investigating officer and on the following

¶76

Bail Appl..No.5513 OF 2020

¶77

conditions;

¶78

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶79

2.They shall appear before the investigating

¶80

officer as and when called for.

¶81

3.They shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.

¶82

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶83

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for

¶84

cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Jeeja Bose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeeja Bose 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

Krishnan Nair N Vs State of Kerala

Sunny Cleetus Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Indrajith Vs State of Kerala

Thrishna Vs State of Kerala