Allowed

Nitin Pushpan v. State of Kerala Represnted by SHO Thodupuzha Police Station Idukki District

Kerala HC19 Jul 2021Bail Appl./1950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the 7th and 8th accused in a cheating case. They are partners of an institution involved in the alleged fraud but claim no direct role in money transactions or interrogations. The order requires surrender and a bond.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000 each with two sureties; surrender within ten days.

Nitin Pushpan Vs State of Kerala Represnted by SHO… — 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

MONDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1950 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1481 OF 2019 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI.

¶7

PETITIONERS/7TH AND 8TH ACCUSED:

¶8

1 NITIN PUSHPAN

¶9

AGED 23 YEARS

¶10

NITIN NIVAS, KUTTARA KULAKADA EAST P.O, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691521

¶11

2 VIPIN MOHAN AGED 23 YEARS CHERUKAREETH VEEDU, KUTTARA KULAKADA EAST P.O, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691521

¶12

BY ADV RAPHAEL THEKKAN

¶13

RESPONDENT/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESNTED BY SHO THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION IDUKKI DISTRICT STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SHO OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶15

2 SHUJA ANSIL AGED 42 YEARS

¶16

ROSHNI HOUSE, MARAMOODU JUNCTION, KOTTANKARA VILLAGE, CHANTHANTHOPPU P.O, KOLLAM DIS, PIN - 691004

¶17

PP - SMT. SREEJA V.

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶19

19.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.NO.1950 OF 2021

ORDER

Petitioners are the 7^th and 8^th accused in Crime No.1481/2019 of Thodupuzha Police Station, which was registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 506(1) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The allegation is that the petitioners had obtained an amount of Rs.57,50,000/- from the defacto complainant promising to arrange a seat for MBBS in Al Azar Medical College Thodupuzha. Later, they failed in arranging the seat nor the money was returned. So the daughter of the defacto complainant had to arrange seat elsewhere. Only an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was returned and the crime was launched in such a contingency.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they happened to be arrayed as accused for the sole reason that they happened to be partners of an institution by name Felsted Edu Solutions along with the first accused, who had obtained amount from

¶27

B.A.NO.1950 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

the defacto complainant. The petitioners have no connection whatsoever with the money transactions. Therefore, their custodial interrogation is not necessary. Thus they pray for release them under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the first accused

¶30

has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court under Annexure-III order.

¶31

Even going by the prosecution records, the money transaction was between the first accused and the petitioners. Whether the petitioners were privy to the transaction, by virtue of the fact that they happened to share the management of the said institution can be decided after taking evidence. In the nature of the allegations, it does not seem that their custodial interrogation is warranted. There is no apprehension that they will flee from justice.

¶32

In the circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and make themselves available for interrogation; in the event of arrest, they shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; they shall co-operate with the investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or

¶33

B.A.NO.1950 OF 2021

¶34

¶35

tamper with the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during the

¶36

period on bail.

¶37

Bail application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL JUDGE

Jms/19.07

//True Copy// P.A to Judge

Nitin Pushpan v. State of Kerala Represnted by SHO Thodupuzha Police Station Idukki District

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Pushpan v. State of Kerala Represnted by SHO Thodupuzha Police Station Idukki District

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

Francis Salas Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan P Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kabeer T Vs State of Kerala

Shafeek Vs State of Kerala

Jiji Philip Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Joji Vs State of Kerala