Allowed

Renjith Pannackal Ittykunju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2021Bail Appl./1227/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed anticipatory bail to husband and wife accused of cheating and forgery. The court found they are not flight risks and willing to cooperate, ruling custodial interrogation unnecessary for the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on surrender within two weeks; release on bond of Rs.1,00,000 with sureties if arrested post-interrogation.

Renjith Pannackal Ittykunju Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Bail Appl.No.1227 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1461/2020 OF Town West Police Station , Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 RENJITH PANNACKAL ITTYKUNJU AGED 45 YEARS, FLAT NO. 2C, KALLUPALAM RESIDENCY, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM – 686001.

¶9

2 DONNA RANJIT AGED 44 YEARS, FLAT NO. 2C, KALLUPALAM RESIDENCY, CHALUKUNNU, KOTTAYAM – 686001.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRUTHY N. BHAT SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.V.C.SARATH SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SMT.POOJA PANKAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682031. 2 KABIR UMMER AGED 39 YEARS, 3C, WEST GATE APPARTMENT, POONKUNNAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR. R1 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.ANEESH R2 BY ADV. SRI.BIJU VARGHESE ABRAHAM R2 BY ADV. SRI.SHASHANK DEVAN

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl.No.1227 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 22nd day of March 2021

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail under

¶20

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

The applicants are husband and wife, who are

¶22

arraigned as accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.1461/2020 of Thrissur Town West Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 406,

¶23

417, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶24

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶25

applicants in furtherance of common intention had

¶26

dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to invest money in share marketing and accordingly, the de facto

¶27

complainant had transferred a total sum of Rs.22,07,041.30/- into the account of the 1st applicant

¶28

and a further sum of Rs.1,79,000/- was transferred to

¶29

the account of the 2nd applicant and thereafter the

¶30

applicants also dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver his car worth Rs.5 lakhs for the

¶31

¶32

Bail Appl.No.1227 OF 2021

¶33

purpose of using it for sometime, but thereafter the

¶34

car was allegedly transferred to the name of the 2nd applicant by concocting and fabricating documents and forging the signature of the de facto complainant.

¶35

The applicants state that the allegations are

¶36

not true and in fact the 1st applicant had invested some money in a company in Mumbai by the name “EMEX FTM International” and he made some profits out of it. The de facto complainant was known to him and he also induced him to invest some amount. Since the investor has to be introduced by somebody who has already invested the money, some amounts were transferred into

¶37

the accounts of the applicants and a total sum of Rs.2,10,000/- was transferred to the 1st applicant’s account and Rs.48,000/- was transferred into the account of the 2nd applicant and the applicants had allegedly transferred all those amounts which was

¶38

received from the de facto complainant to the aforesaid company for investment. However, the company in Mumbai

¶39

did not thereafter pay any profits out of the investment and the applicants also allegedly lost some

¶40

¶41

Bail Appl.No.1227 OF 2021

¶42

amount. The 1st applicant had legally purchased the car belonging to the de facto complainant for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and the amount was transferred into the account of the de facto complainant. The sale letter was also executed by the de facto complainant and it is not forged. The alteration in the name and the registration certificate was brought about on the basis of the legal records which were transmitted by the de facto complainant to the applicants. And therefore, the allegation that the de facto complainant was dishonestly induced to deliver his car for the purpose of using and the entire amount was transferred to the account of the applicants are not true. But the de facto complainant kept on harassing the 1st applicant in consequence of which he filed a complaint on 21.10.2020 before the S.H.O. Kottayam West Police

¶43

Station in which he has mentioned regarding the entire transactions between them and requested the police to

¶44

take action against the de facto complainant. It is consequent to that on 23.11.2020 that the de facto complainant had filed a private complaint before the

¶45

¶46

Bail Appl.No.1227 OF 2021

¶47

jurisdictional court, which was forwarded to the S.H.O.

¶48

Thrissur Town West Police Station and the crime was

¶49

registered under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The

¶50

applicants state that they are willing to cooperate

¶51

with the investigation and are not fleeing from justice and they do not have any criminal antecedents apart from the said transactions between the applicants and the de facto complainant, and therefore, they seek prearrest bail.

¶52

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and

¶53

the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant.

¶54

The transactions which were allegedly made to

¶55

the company at Mumbai were through the account of the applicants, but the applicants deny that. It is stated that only a lesser amount has been actually transferred through their account and the rest of the amount has been directly transferred by the de facto complainant

¶56

to the company in Mumbai. The amounts which were

¶57

received by the applicants from the de facto complainant through their accounts has already been

¶58

Bail Appl.No.1227 OF 2021

¶59

¶60

transferred to the company at Mumbai. Hence, the

¶61

applicants have not wrongly gained by the transaction. The allegation of forgery is untrue since it was based on legal documents that the transfer of the vehicle was effected and the applicants are willing to subject themselves to interrogation by the police and produce all the documents pertaining to the transaction.

¶62

After having heard the submissions on both

¶63

sides, I find that the applicants are not likely to flee from justice and they are willing to cooperate with the investigation and the details of their accounts are also available, and hence, custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶64

In the result, the bail application is allowed and

¶65

the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of arrest, after interrogation and recovery, if any, the applicants shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount

¶66

¶67

Bail Appl.No.1227 OF 2021

¶68

each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer,

¶69

and on the following conditions:

¶70

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶71

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer

¶72

as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation; and

¶73

involved in any similar offences.

¶74

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for

¶75

cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶76

ASHOK MENON

¶77

JUDGE

¶78

dkr

Renjith Pannackal Ittykunju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renjith Pannackal Ittykunju 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

Muhammed Faisal P Vs State of Kerala

Sudheer P.K Vs State of Kerala

Rino Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal K Vs State of Kerala

Albert Augustine K.J Vs State of Kerala

Anas T Vs State of Kerala