Allowed

Maneesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Aug 2021Bail Appl./1614/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC regarding alleged cheating and theft of a car, the Court observed inconsistencies in the complainant's version. The petitioner is allowed bail upon surrender and providing bond and sureties, subject to cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to surrender on bail with Rs.50,000 bond and two sureties each for Rs.50,000 to satisfy the Investigating Officer.

Maneesh 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 K.HARIPAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1614 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1275/2020 OF Thiruvallam Police Station,

¶7

Thiruvananthapuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

MANEESH AGED 23 YEARS, AIRAYIL VEEDU, THIRUVALLOM VILLAGE, PACHALLOOR P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695527

¶10

BY ADV BIJU BALAKRISHNAN

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

ADDL.R2 MANEESH

¶14

AGED 29 YEARS TC 67/287, PUTHENVEEDU, THOPPADI, PACHALLOOR , PIN - 695527. IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 10.3.2021 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2021.

¶15

BY ADV.SMT.SREEJA V, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

BAIL APPL.NO.1614 OF 2021

¶19

-2-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner has moved this application claiming

¶22

himself as the second accused in crime

¶23

No.1275/2020 of Thiruvallam police station in Thiruvananthapuram district.

¶24

The crime was registered alleging theft of

¶25

a car bearing registration No.KL-01-CD-625 Hyundai

¶26

Xcent owned by the wife of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that the accused

¶27

persons had taken the vehicle from the defacto complainant after making him believe that it will be returned in a few days; but did not return it and thereby committed the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶28

petitioner and also the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶30

BAIL APPL.NO.1614 OF 2021 -3-

¶31

submits with the aid of Annexure-1 complaint allegedly given by the wife of the defacto complainant before the Sub Inspector, Thiruvallom police station on 01.07.2020. According to the learned counsel, the case of the petitioner is that the vehicle was taken away by one Binoy Das and his wife, Poonam Das, who belong to Goa. They had taken the vehicle on the pretext of taking their child for treatment to Kollam. Thereafter, it was not returned. In spite of repeated demands, they failed to respond and at last the mobile phone was found switched off. Thereafter, the defacto complainant has changed his version and on 23.11.2020, the First Information Statement was filed alleging overt acts on the part of the

¶32

petitioner and another. The learned counsel submits that the defacto complainant and his wife are running a 'rent a car' business in Thiruvallam and that the second accused, Binu has already been

¶33

granted anticipatory bail by this Court.

¶34

BAIL APPL.NO.1614 OF 2021

¶35

-4-

¶36

According to the learned counsel, the petitioner

¶37

does not have any role in the alleged missing of the car. He is a relative of the defacto complainant. According to his information, the vehicle has been traced from Goa. Eventhough the defacto complainant knew about it, he is not interested in retrieving it since that would cause him financial burden.

¶38

As directed, the learned Senior Public

¶39

Prosecutor has made available the case diary before the Court. I have gone through Annexure-1 complaint alleged to have been given by the wife of the defacto complainant to the Sub Inspector of Police, Thiruvallom. But the complaint is not available in the case diary. The crime was registered only on 23.11.2020 in respect of a cause of action that had happened on 02.06.2020. At least at this stage, one cannot disown Annexure-1 complaint given by the wife of the defacto complainant. That means, the defacto

¶40

BAIL APPL.NO.1614 OF 2021

¶41

-5-

¶42

complainant and his wife have given prevaricative

¶43

versions own version with regard to the loss of the car. Going by Annexure-1 complaint, the vehicle was taken away by Binoy Das and Poonam Das, who are natives of Goa. Annexure-1 was given on 01.07.2020; after lapse of about 5 ½ months, a new version has been given to the police by the defacto complainant, the husband of the registered owner, setting the law in motion; that is how the petitioner and another have been implicated. In fact the very reason for the delay in alerting the police is not inferable.

¶44

The petitioner is a native of Thiruvallam. The learned counsel has submitted that he would co-operate with investigation. Even the

¶45

prosecution has no case that he will flee from justice. In the circumstances and in the nature of allegations, it does not seem that his custodial interrogation is warranted.

¶46

BAIL APPL.NO.1614 OF 2021

¶47

-6-

¶48

Therefore, the petitioner shall be at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and will make himself available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; he shall co-operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail.

¶49

This bail application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

nkr/04.08.2021

Maneesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maneesh 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

Chandu Vs State of Kerala

Ansar Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumoideen @ Nisar Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep.B Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Kumar Vs the Station House Officer

Manoj Augustine Vs State of Kerala