Dismissed

Raju Antony v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2020Bail Appl./7088/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the applicant's bail application. Finding the applicant had criminal antecedents and the prosecution made a prima facie case of cheating, the court held he was not entitled to anticipatory bail and directed him to surrender.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied. Applicant directed to surrender before Investigating Officer within two weeks.

Raju Antony 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7088 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.801/2020 OF KURUVILANGADU POLICE STATION , KOTTAYAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

RAJU ANTONY, AGED 65 YEARS, SON OF ANTONY, KARAKKAL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD, CHEGHANASSERY . PIN-686101

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.B.GAFOOR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 MINI SHAJI, AGED 51 YEARS, WIFE OF SHAJI SEBASTIAN, KURUVINAMTHOTTIYIL (H) KALATHUR CHURCH BAGHAM, KALATHOOR P.O , KOTTAYAM- 686633 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX JOSEPH

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.No.7088 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 02nd day of December 2020

¶20

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶21

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.801 of
2020 of Kuruvilangadu Police Station, Kottayam, for having
allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406,
420 & 468 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶22

2.The applicant, dishonestly induced the 2nd

¶23

respondent to deliver a sum of Rs.34 lakhs by offering jobs to
her children. After receiving the amount, and with the
dishonest intention to convince her, he also showed her a
fabricated and forged selection list of the Federal Bank and a
letter from the South Indian Bank carrying the names of her
children. Thus, without providing the job or returning the
money, the defacto complainant was cheated. The applicant
would contend that he is involved in film production. For the
purpose of producing a film titled “Dance Dance,” he obtained
a loan from the defacto complainant, who is engaged in the
financing of films. The money he obtained from her was a loan.

¶24

B.A.No.7088 OF 2020

¶25

¶26

The applicant could not repay the amount as promised and in
consequence of that, a false and fabricated case of cheating
had been filed by the defacto complainant in order to compel
repayment. It is only a civil dispute between the applicant and
the defacto complainant and there is no criminal offence
committed by the applicant.

¶27

3.It is further stated that the applicant is a person
without any criminal antecedents and that he may be granted
anticipatory bail. The defacto complainant appeared and filed
an objection to this application for bail stating that the
applicant is a national level leader of INTUC and believing his
words that he would be able to provide employment to the
defacto complainant's children in Indian Railways as also in a
Scheduled Bank, she was induced to deliver a sum of
Rs.34 lakhs to him. Moreover, he had also specifically
demonstrated his influence by introducing the defacto
complainant to the National Secretary of the NCP and other
important persons which made the defacto complainant believe
that the applicant will be able to provide employment to her
children.

¶28

4.It is stated that the applicant is a criminal and has
been involved in several other crimes regarding which the

¶29

B.A.No.7088 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

defacto complainant has produced documents to substantiate
her objections. There are crimes registered at the Hill Palace
Police Station, Thampanoor Police Station and Kottarakkara
Police Station against the applicant which indicates that he is
involved in offences of similar nature and he has made it his
avocation to cheat people in deploying similar methods of
enticing them to pay money on the basis of his position capable
of influence in him. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may
not be granted anticipatory bail.

¶32

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the
counsel appearing for the defacto complainant.

¶33

6.After hearing the submissions made by the counsels
appearing for the defacto complainant and the applicant and
also the learned Public Prosecutor, I understand that the
applicant has been involved in several crimes of similar nature
and it falsifies his submissions in the application that he is a
person having no criminal antecedents. It is also pertinent to
note that the applicant was a person who has wielded
considerable influence in INTUC which led the defacto
complainant to believe that he would be able to provide
employment to her children and that is how the amount was

¶34

B.A.No.7088 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

transferred by her. In case, it was a loan as suggested by the
applicant, there would definitely have been some documents to
prove that the defacto complainant had advanced money to the
applicant for the purpose of film production and it can hardly
be believed that anyone would advance the amount for the
purpose of film production without a scrap of paper to advance
the transaction. The applicant not only made the defacto
complainant believe that he would be able to provide
employment to her children. He also concocted and forged
documents to convince her that her children's name figured in
the list of candidates selected for recruitment to different
banks.

¶37

7.It is true that the prosecution has not been able to
lay its hands on such forged documents which ultimately may
be required during the trial. But for theprima faciepurpose of
establishing the complicity of the applicant for considering the
bail application, the submissions made in the objections and by
the Public Prosecutor, and the materials produced would be
sufficient. Under the circumstances, I am sure that in case, the
applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he is going to concoct
documents and he is also going to influence people and tamper
with evidence. The applicant has been involved in various cases

¶38

B.A.No.7088 OF 2020

¶39

¶40

of economic fraud and the decision of P.Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement [2019 KHC 6886 SC:(2019) 9

¶41

SCC 24]will be squarely applicable to this case and the
applicant is not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of
anticipatory bail.

¶42

In the result, the application is dismissed and the
applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating
Officer within two weeks. After interrogation, 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 preferably disposed of on
the very same day.

¶43

 Sd/-
 ASHOK MENON
 JUDGE

¶44

NR/02/12/20

Raju Antony v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju Antony 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

Jobi Jose Vs State of Kerala

Jaya Vs State of Kerala

Harikuttan Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Saneesh Vs State of Kerala