Allowed

Santhosh K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2021Bail Appl./206/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the sole accused facing cheating charges under the IPC. The court noted conflicting versions of financial transactions and determined no grounds for believing the accused would abscond, imposing strict conditions regarding surrender frequency, passport surrender, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Granted pre-arrest bail subject to execution of bond for 5 lakhs with sureties, weekly appearance before investigating officer, surrender of passport, and conditions against tampering.

Santhosh K 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

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.206 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.544/2020 OF Infopark Police Station , Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SANTHOSH K, AGED 43 YEARS THEUERAYYATHU HOUSE, MARIYAPURAM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN – 685604.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 AJITHKUMAR MOHAPATRA AGED 47 YEARS 2A, UPENDRA NIWAS, N2/165, IRC VILLAGE, NAYAPALLI, BHUBANESWAR, ORISSA 751012

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL R2 BY ADV. SMT.S.SIBHA R2 BY ADV. SHRI.ANOOP SEBASTIAN R2 BY ADV. KUM.PARVATHY VIJAYAN

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.V.SREEJA-PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON 16.03.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 206/2021

O R D E R

Dated this the 16th day of March 2021

¶21

Application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C for anticipatory

¶22

bail.

¶23

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.544 of

¶24

2020 of Infopark Police Station for having allegedly committed

¶25

offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 468 and

¶26

500 of the I.P.C.

¶27

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant

¶28

had dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver

¶29

huge sums of money running into crores of rupees making him

¶30

believe that he would be made a partner in the business venture started by the applicant in Kuwait and Singapore.

¶31

Promising to pay good returns the applicant had also induced

¶32

BA 206/2021

¶33

¶34

the de facto complainant to transfer rupees one crore into the

¶35

account of one Rajan, who was introduced by the applicant to

¶36

the de facto complainant, stating that the said Rajan is

¶37

involved in financial trading. Promises were also given by the applicant about starting a company in Singapore assuring good

¶38

returns. The de facto complainant was made to believe that the applicant is a close relative of the Pandalam Raja and that he

¶39

could arrange purchase of huge tracts of land in Pandalam.

¶40

Documents were created by the applicant for the purpose of cheating the de facto complainant and he misappropriated the entire amount in this transfer by the de facto complainant. That apart, the applicant also defamed the de facto complainant and his wife.

¶41

The applicant states that the allegations are untrue

¶42

BA 206/2021

¶43

¶44

and unsustainable. The applicant and the de facto complainant were colleagues working together in a company from 2009 to

¶45

The de facto complainant started a company named High-tech Equipments in the year 2013. He offered a job to the applicant in his company after the applicant had resigned

¶46

from the company in which he was employed. No monetary transactions had taken place between the applicant and the de facto complainant during the period he was an employee under

¶47

the de facto complainant. In the year 2014, the applicant

¶48

started an independent venture named Royal Westline based in

¶49

Kuwait and the de facto complainant was also made a partner in that firm. Thereafter, the applicant and the de facto complainant started another company named Q8 Management Consultancy based in Singapore as partners. The de facto

¶50

BA 206/2021

¶51

¶52

complainant did not transfer any amount to the applicant as alleged. A sum of 43 lakhs was transferred to the account of₹

¶53

the applicant towards salary due from High-tech Equipments

¶54

during the year 2018-2019. Thereafter, the applicant started another company with the person named Gopakumar under

¶55

the name and style Westline High-Tech Products and Services

¶56

India Pvt. Ltd. The de facto complainant showed no interest or

¶57

desire to join that company. His proposal to join the venture in

¶58

India came at the point when he was disowned by his sponsor in Kuwait as a result of which he lost access to the company's bank account. The applicant also states that an employee

¶59

named Hari Krishnan was fired from the company as it was found that he was indulging in malpractices and

¶60

misappropriation of funds. He has also played a major role in

¶61

BA 206/2021

¶62

¶63

manipulating the de facto complainant. The applicant has no

¶64

criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the

¶65

investigation. There is no need for any custodial interrogation and therefore he seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶66

The de facto complainant was impleaded as the 2^nd

¶67

respondent, who has appeared and filed a detailed counter objection reiterating his case mentioned in the complaint. He

¶68

has also produced documents to indicate the fraud deployed by the applicant in misleading him by sending WhatsApp

¶69

messages. It is submitted that the applicant may abscond and

¶70

therefore, he may not be granted pre-arrest bail.

¶71

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M. Revikrishnan, the counsel appearing for the de facto

¶72

complainant Sri. Saiby Jose Kidangoor and the learned

¶73

¶74

BA 206/2021

¶75

Prosecutor Smt. V.Sreeja. Records perused.

¶76

It is an admitted fact that the applicant and the de

¶77

facto complainant had business transactions in Kuwait and

¶78

Singapore. The nature of the transactions as stated by the applicant and the de facto complainant varies. What exactly is the transaction and to what extent the applicant is liable to the de facto complainant in financial terms, are not specified with

¶79

precision. Documentary evidence will have to be relied upon to find that out. Whether the transaction is entirely civil in nature or whether it was cheating as alleged by the de facto

¶80

complainant is something to be investigated and found out.

¶81

The custodial interrogation of the applicant is insisted upon by

¶82

the de facto complainant and the learned Prosecutor under the

¶83

apprehension that he may flee from justice and may not be

¶84

BA 206/2021

¶85

¶86

available for questioning. The applicant has ensured his

¶87

appearance before the investigating officer. In case the transactions had taken place in Kuwait, permission of the Central Government as contemplated under Section 188 Cr.P.C may also be required before the enquiry/investigation and

¶88

trial. At the moment, I find no reason to hold that the applicant

¶89

is likely to abscond. Stringent conditions can be imposed to ensure his availability in the Country.

¶90

Under the circumstances, the application is allowed

¶91

and the applicant is directed to surrender before the

¶92

investigating officer within three weeks. In the event of his

¶93

arrest, he shall be released on bail on execution of bond for ₹5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) with two solvent sureties

¶94

for like amount each to the satisfaction of the investigating

¶95

BA 206/2021

¶96

¶97

officer and on following conditions:

¶98

The applicant shall appear before the investigating

¶99

officer on all Saturdays between 9 AM and 12 noon for

¶100

a period of three months or till filing of the final report

¶101

whichever is earlier.

¶102

The applicant shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional Court and shall not go abroad without the permission of the said Court. The release

¶103

of the passport shall also be considered by the said

¶104

Court as and when necessary. The applicant shall furnish his address and telephone No. to the investigating officer.

¶105

The applicant shall not tamper with evidence,

¶106

intimidate or influence witnesses.

¶107

BA 206/2021

¶108

¶109

The applicant shall not get involved in any similar

¶110

crime during the currency of the bail.

¶111

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the

¶112

prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail before

¶113

the jurisdictional Court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

Santhosh K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh 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

Nabeel Vs State of Kerala

Adon Vincent Vs State of Kerala

Remani Vs State of Kerala

Dhanesh Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Biju T.M Vs State of Kerala

Arun Vs State of Kerala