Dismissed

Santhosh K.A. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2020Bail Appl./723/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pre-arrest bail application by a 1st accused in a cheating and forgery case, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the plea due to the ongoing investigation and previous dismissal but directed the accused to approach the police station within ten days and was eligible for regular bail if preferred.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to appear before SHO Shanthanpara Police Station within ten days for interrogation and production before Magistrate.

Santhosh K.A. Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 22ND MAGHA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO.723 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.50/2019 OF SANTHANPARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :

¶8

SANTHOSH K.A., AGED 47 YEARS S/O.AUGUSTHY, KOTTISSERIL HOUSE, INJAKKADU POST, CHALAKKUDY THALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS SRI.C.V.JOSEPH (CHELAKKATT) SMT.THAMANA BAI SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN SRI.JOEMON ANTONY SHRI.LIGISH XAVIER

¶10

RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶11

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

¶12

2 RAJAN JOHN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.JOHN, 8-B, SFS FLAT, DOLFIN BLOCK, ALUVA TALUK, DESOM KARA, NELLIMATTAM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686691. R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.VINAY R2 BY ADV. SRI.D.FEROZE

¶13

SRI RON BASTIAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl..No.723 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶19

The applicant herein is the 1^st accused in Crime No.50 of

¶20

2019 of the Shanthanpara Police station registered on 02.02.2019 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that the applicant herein along with the 2^nd accused, one Prakash, with intent to cheat the de facto complainant induced him to believe that the 2^nd accused is having absolute title and possession over an item of property having an extent of 3.5 Acres situated at Poopara Village. On its basis, an agreement was entered into on 27.11.2015 between the de facto complainant and the 2^nd accused as per which, he had agreed to assign the property for a consideration of Rs.62,000/- per cent. It is specifically alleged that a sum of Rs.89,44,000/- was transferred by the de facto complainant through bank and otherwise. Instead of assigning the said property, the de facto complainant was allegedly duped and the property having an extent of 60 cents owned by the applicant herein was assigned for a

¶22

Bail Appl..No.723 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

consideration of Rs.12 Lakhs. It is alleged that the accused had acted hand in glove with intent to defraud him. It is further alleged that the applicant managed to obtain a sum of Rs.40 lakhs in the said transaction.

¶25

The applicant herein, along with the 2^nd accused, had earlier approached this Court seeking pre-arrest bail and this Court, after considering the facts and circumstances and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant had dismissed the application by Annexure-A1 order. The applicant has yet again approached this Court seeking the very same relief.

¶26

It is submitted by Sri. Sherry J Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the allegations levelled against the applicant are false. According to the learned counsel, the falsity of the allegations and the innocence of the applicant could not be brought to the notice of this Court when the earlier application was filed jointly by accused Nos.1 and 2. He would point out that the applicant herein had acquaintance with the de facto complainant for over a decade while he was working as a Sales Officer at Marikkar Motors. He used to act for and on behalf of the de facto complainant in numerous property

¶27

Bail Appl..No.723 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

transactions. He would contend that the relationship between the de facto complainant and the applicant became strained and this led to the lodging of a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chalakudy. The entire disputes were settled and the applicant herein had assigned the property having an extent of 60 cents in favour of the defacto complainant in order to compensate the loss caused by the 2^nd accused. Learned counsel would also refer to Annexure A6 series of receipts issued by the 2^nd accused in favour of the applicant herein to bring on his point that substantial amounts transferred to the applicant by the defacto complainant was in fact transferred by him to the 2^nd accused. It is further submitted that the applicant is a person with no criminal antecedents and if he is arrested and detained, he would be subjected to gross ignominy.

¶30

Sri. Ron Bastian, the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed

¶31

the prayer. It is submitted that the earlier application was dismissed by this Court and there being no change in circumstances, no interference is warranted. He would contend that the genuineness of the documents produced by the applicant is doubtful and no reliance can be placed on the same.

¶32

I have also heard Sri.V.Vinay, the learned counsel appearing

¶33

Bail Appl..No.723 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

for the 2^nd respondent who seriously opposed the prayer.

¶36

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. The applicant has produced several documents before this Court to bring home his point that he is innocent. As rightly submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, in an application of this nature this Court will not be justified in relying on the same at this stage. Furthermore, his application having been dismissed on an earlier occasion, I do not think it would be proper to grant a blanket order of pre-arrest bail particularly when the investigation is still in the early stages.

¶37

However, having regard to the lack of criminal antecedents and the nature of allegations, I am of the view that certain directions can be issued to the applicant so that he cooperates with the investigation.

¶38

In the result, while dismissing this application, the applicant is directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Shanthanpara Police station within a period of ten days from today. He shall be thoroughly interrogated and thereafter shall be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. If an application for regular bail is

¶39

Bail Appl..No.723 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits by the learned Magistrate, ideally on the

¶42

same day itself.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Santhosh K.A. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh K.A. 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

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

The Assistant Executive Engineer,, Vs Sam C.K.

Asgar Vs P. S. Viswambharan

Suresh U.M.. Vs the District Executive Officer

Forza Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Labour Officer

Shamseer Peecham Veettil, Vs the District Executive Officer