Allowed

Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Nov 2020Bail Appl./6205/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It held that the civil court must decide disputes regarding the validity of a Will and the compromise decree, rather than the criminal court. The applicant was granted bail with specific conditions including sponsoring sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; applicant directed to surrender within two weeks; released on bail upon arrest after interrogation by executing a bond with two sureties.

Raveendran Nair Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6205 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.2201/2019 OF Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

RAVEENDRAN NAIR AGED 54 YEARS S/O. SIVASANKARA PILLAI, KOVILVILAKOM HOUSE, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O. 695002

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJIN S.HAMEED SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 PRASANNAKUMARI AMMA AGED 79 YEARS D/O PARUKUTTY AMMA, JAYADEVAM HOUSE, K.P.NO.13/126, YENIKKARA VILLAGE, AARAMKALLU WARD, KARAKULAM PANCHAYAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/10/2020 IN CRL.MA 1/2020.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R1 BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION R2 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN SRI.B.JAYA SURYA SR PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.6205 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 27th day of November 2020

¶19

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶20

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶21

The applicant is the first accused in Crime

¶22

No.2201/2019 of Karamana Police Station,

¶23

Thiruvananthapuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶25

de facto complainant is a lady whose son claims to be a member of 'Koodathu' family of Karamana. It

¶26

is alleged that he is entitled to inherit the

¶27

entire property of the said family by way of

¶28

intestate succession as the only legal heir. No testamentary documents have been executed by

¶29

anyone in the family to dispose of the property otherwise.

¶30

However, the prosecution case is that all

¶31

accused hatched a conspiracy to usurp the entire

¶32

¶33

Bail Appl..No.6205 OF 2020

¶34

assets belonging to the aforesaid family and as a part of the conspiracy, they filed a suit as OS No.135/2013 before the Additional Subordinate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram in respect of some property belonging to the aforesaid family, and the de facto complainant's son was also made a party to that suit. It is stated that the suit has purportedly settled between the parties and a compromise was arrived at. In consequence of that, the assets involved in that suit were distributed

¶35

among the members of the family who were parties to that suit.

¶36

The de facto complainant, however, states

¶37

that the property belonging to one Jayamadhavan Nair who an insane person was allegedly bequeathed in favour of the applicant by forging a Will, with the intention to grab the properties which would rightfully have devolved upon the son of the de

¶38

facto complainant. Therefore, a complaint was

¶39

Bail Appl..No.6205 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

filed and in consequence of which this crime was registered. It is also stated that the applicant and the other accused had, in 2013, intimidated the de facto complainant and her son of dire consequences in case they went for any litigation. The earlier partitioned suit referred to above was settled and a compromise as a result of coercion and threat exercised by the accused to make the de facto complainant’s son sign the compromise, which is vitiated.

¶42

The applicant states that the allegations are all untrue. The compromise was arrived at in a very peaceful manner with the full consent of all the parties involved in the litigation. The de facto complainant's son too had received a portion of the property as his share, which was also sold by him, as evidenced by Annexure-6. Now after a lapse of so many years, the de facto complainant has filed a complaint against the accused in this

¶43

Bail Appl..No.6205 OF 2020

¶44

case under the instigation of someone.

¶45

The applicant states that he was the

¶46

caretaker of the elderly persons residing in the family and he took good care of them. A Will was executed and registered, bequeathing some property to him. It is valid Will that came into existence

¶47

on the demise of the testator. the validity of the Will has to be challenged before a civil court of competent jurisdiction in case it is concocted as alleged by the de facto complainant. The criminal court has no jurisdiction to find a Will concocted, forged or invalid. The applicant states that he has no criminal antecedents, he is a Government employee and there is no possibility of his absconding or not co-operating with the investigation. Under the circumstances, he seeks anticipatory bail. The second accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as evidenced by Annexure-7.

¶48

Bail Appl..No.6205 OF 2020

¶49

¶50

Heard the learned senior counsel for the

¶51

applicant Sri. P.Vijaya Bhanu, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant Sri. Sabu

¶52

George and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶53

After having heard the submissions made on either side, I find that the dispute between the de facto complainant and the accused in this case is primarily pertaining to the execution of a Will bequeathing properties to the applicant. The allegation that the compromise decree in the civil

¶54

suit was vitiated by fraud and coercion, is also a matter to be decided by a civil court. The fact that de facto complainant's son was a party to the

¶55

suit and the compromise and had acted upon the compromise by selling the share allotted to him are prima facie circumstances against the present version of threat and coercion in the year 2013

¶56

and therefore, the civil court of competent jurisdiction will have to decide on the validity

¶57

Bail Appl..No.6205 OF 2020

¶58

of the Will and also the compromise decree in the

¶59

civil suit. There is no possibility that the applicant may abscond. He is a Government employee and I find no reason to hold that he may not cooperate with the investigation. He also has no criminal antecedents.

¶60

In the result the bail application is

¶61

allowed, and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within

¶62

two weeks. In the event of his arrest, after interrogation he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶63

investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶64

1.He shall appear before the investigating

¶65

officer as and when called for.

¶66

2.He shall not tamper with evidence, influence

¶67

Bail Appl..No.6205 OF 2020

¶68

or intimidate witnesses.

¶69

3.He shall not get involved in similar offences

¶70

during the bail period.

¶71

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Raveendran Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raveendran Nair 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

Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala

O.Abdul Kareem Alias Kunhani Vs State Fo Kerala

Kunjumuhammed Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Shaji K H Vs State of Kerala