Allowed

Dhaneesh K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2021Bail Appl./1132/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted pre-arrest bail to two accused persons charged under the IPC for cheating and conspiracy. The court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary as the accused had returned most misappropriated funds. Bail was granted subject to conditions including execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted subject to execution of bond for Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties, appearance as required, no inducement of witnesses, and no commission of offence.

Dhaneesh K. Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL APPL. NO. 1132 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 1132 OF 2021

¶6

(CRIME NO.17 OF 2021 OF KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT)

¶7

CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS

¶8

(CRIME NO.50 OF 2021 OF MUZHUKKUNNU POLICE STATION)

¶9

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶10

1 DHANEESH K. AGED 24 YEARS S.O DINEESHAN, KOLLANIPURATH, KAKKAYANGAD P.O., EDATHOTTY, KANNUR DISTRICT KANNUR, PIN - 670673 2 NIDHIN P.P.@KUNJAVA AGED 25 YEARS S.O P.K.RAJESHAN, PADIPURAYKAL, KAKKAYANGAD P.O., PALAPUZHA KANNUR DISTRICT : 670673. KANNUR, PIN - 670673 BY ADV ROSIN JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CRIME NO. 17 OF 2021 OF KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION) KANNUR DISTRICT.- 670704. KANNUR, PIN - 670704 3 ANTONY V.D.@ANTO AGED 39 YEARS S.O. DEVASIA, VEEZHAMALAYIL HOUSE, KOOMANTHODU, KARIKOTTAKARI KANNUR DISTRICT: 670704., PIN - 670704

¶13

BAIL APPL. NO. 1132 OF 2021

OTHER PRESENT:

SREEJA.V- SR.PP

THE CRIME NUMBER “CRIME NO.17 OF 2021 OF KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION”, THE WORD “2ND RESPONDENT” OCCURRING IN THE BAIL APPLICATION CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS “CRIME NO.50/2021 OF MUZHUKKUNNU POLICE STATION” AND “KARIKOTTAKARI POLICE STATION” RESPECTIVELY AS PER ORDER DATED 19.3.2021 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2021

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

BAIL APPL. NO. 1132 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.50 of 2021 of Muzhakkunnu police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 506,420,406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, these petitioners have moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

The prosecution allegation in brief is as follows:

¶24

The petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 with the dishonest intention to cheat the defacto complainant approached him with a proposal that, if he is ready to pay a sum of Rs.25 lakhs they could provide him with a copper knife, worth for the said amount. The defacto complainant believing their words handed over a sum of Rs.7 lakhs and the 3^rd accused has also handed over Rs.3 lakhs to the 1^st and 2^nd accused and later they handed over a knife worth Rs.500/- to the defacto complainant as if it is a costly item and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶25

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners they are totally innocent of the allegations levelled against them. In fact the

¶26

1^st accused was having a business transaction with the defacto complainant. He had borrowed a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, but he could not repay the same as promised and that is the reason why a false case

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 1132 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

has been registered against him and the other accused. In fact they have not committed any offence.

¶30

But the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners 1 and 2 had received a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from the defacto complainant and Rs.3 lakhs from the 3^rd accused. After registration of this crime an amount of Rs.6 lakhs was returned to the defacto complainant. Now the investigation of the case is well in progress.

¶31

The 3^rd accused has already been granted pre-arrest bail.

¶32

As submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor the petitioners have returned a sum of Rs.6 lakhs to the defacto complainant. So in fact the allegation against these petitioners is that they have misappropriated a sum of Rs.1 lakh by giving a false promise. Whatever be it, considering the accusation levelled against the petitioners as well the other facts and circumstances involved in this case, I do not find any reason to think that custodial interrogation of these petitioners are required to proceed with the investigation of the case.

¶33

Such being the case, I think that these petitioners can be granted pre-arrest bail subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them

¶35

BAIL APPL. NO. 1132 OF 2021

¶36

¶37

executing bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

¶38

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him in writing. He shall co-operate with the investigation of the case.

¶39

(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶40

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶41

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶42

the jurisdictional court is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

smm

Dhaneesh K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhaneesh K. 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

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala

Stibin Vs State of Kerala

Arun.C., Vs State of Kerala

Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

Haseer Vs State of Kerala

Arjun J Unnithan Vs State of Kerala