The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed a bail application of accused petitioners in a cheating case under IPC Sections 406, 420 and 34. The court held that facts did not establish their innocence despite claims of being deceived by the first accused.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 1810 OF 2021
IN CRIME NO.35/2021 OF RAMANKARI POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 & 3:
1 C.K.REJI AGED 48 YEARS S/O KUNJAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, MUTTAR P.O, ALAPPUZHA ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689574 2 RADHIKA C.R AGED 45 YEARS W/O C.K REJI AND D/O OF RAVI, CHEERAMVELIL HOUSE, MANCHADI KARA, CHANGANASSERY P.O ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 686101 BY ADVS. M.SANTHY SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 ADDL.R2 SUBASH S/O MANIYAN, CHEMPADI PUTHEVEL COLONY, RAMANKARI VILLAGE, PIN-689595. (IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.03.2021 IN CRL. MA NO. 1 OF 2021 IN BA NO. 1810 OF 2021) BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PP -SMT. SREEJA V.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.1810 of 2021
2
ORDER
Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.35/2021 of
Ramankary Police Station in Alappuzha district, which was registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Even though the defacto complainant was impleaded as additional
B.A.No.1810 of 2021
3
second respondent and notice was served on him, he has chosen to remain absent. Whatever it may be, it is alleged that the first accused is a fraudster and numerous such cases have been registered against him. He had made himself believe the defacto complainant and others that he is a high ranking influential official of the Central Government and on that pretext, offering employment in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Shipyard etc., collected large sum of money from them. In this case, Rs.9.5 lakhs was collected from the defacto complainant in different instalments. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that Rs.3,00,000/- was paid directly to the first accused, Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the second accused and Rs.4.5 lakhs was transfered through the account of the third accused, the 2nd petitioner.
B.A.No.1810 of 2021
4
by the petitioners in instalments, withdrawing money from the Federal Bank, from the account of the second petitioner. It is also alleged that Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the 1st petitioner. It cannot be believed that Rs.4.5 lakhs was transferred to the account of the 2nd petitioner without their knowledge on connivance. Considering all these aspects, the petitioners are not entitled to get an order under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The application is liable to be dismissed.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, they are prepared to surrender before the Investigating Officer. In the event of surrendering, their case shall be considered by the Investigating Officer with utmost expedition.
The bail application is disposed of, as above.
Sd/- K.HARIPAL JUDGE
Jms/12.07
//True Copy// P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners accused in a cheating case are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Whether the queries about mental element and surrender make the petitioners fit for bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.K. Reji
Radhika C.R
State of Kerala
Addl. R2 Subash
K. Haripal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
