Allowed

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2021Bail Appl./315/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the first accused in a cheating case involving an alleged promise of employment. The Court noted the transaction was admitted but the nature was disputed, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary and granting bail with conditions to cooperate with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on an ad-interim basis with a bond of Rs.1,00,000 and two sureties, directed to surrender within two weeks.

Anilkumar Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.315 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.711/2019 OF Kilikolloor Police Station , Kollam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

ANILKUMAR AGED 46 YEARS, SON OF BHASKARAN, KUREEPUZHA VEEDU, PEROOR, KOTTARAKARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691506.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691019.

¶13

3 PRASAD, AGED 57 YEARS, SON OF SADANANDHAN, NANDHU BHAVAN, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT – 691019. R1-R2 BY SMT.V.SREEJA-PP R3 BY ADV. SMT.S.SEETHA R3 BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Bail Appl.No.315 OF 2021

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Dated this the 3rd day of March 2021

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶21

The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime

¶22

No.711/2019 of Kilikolloor Police Station for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶23

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶24

applicant in furtherance of common intention with the 2nd accused, dishonestly induced the de facto complainant to deliver a sum of Rs.3 lakhs to them, which was transferred to the account of the applicant

¶25

in Union Bank, on the promise that the son of the de facto complainant would be provided with a job as Travelling Ticket Examiner (TTE) in Indian Railways and

¶26

that the applicant and the 2nd accused had sufficient clout to arrange a job. They had demanded a sum of Rs.14 lakhs and this amount of Rs.3 lakhs was paid as

¶27

¶28

Bail Appl.No.315 OF 2021

¶29

advance and the balance amount was agreed to be paid after the job was arranged. However, the de facto complainant realised that he had been cheated and that no job could be arranged by the applicant, and therefore, he filed a complaint before the police on 29.03.2019 as is evident from Annexure R3(a). But the

¶30

police were indolent and did not take any action. The de facto complainant was thus constrained to file a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam as C.M.P.No.1840/2019 as is evident from Annexure R3(b) and the same was forwarded to the concerned police station for investigation and consequent to that the crime was registered.

¶31

The applicant states that the allegation of the de facto complainant is totally unbelievable because the applicant admittedly did not have any connection with the Indian Railways and he could not have arranged any job in the Railways. The applicant was well known to the de facto complainant, and therefore, the story that the applicant had received the amount on condition

¶32

¶33

Bail Appl.No.315 OF 2021

¶34

that he would be providing employment to the son of the de facto complainant is totally unbelievable. It is admitted that the applicant had received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, but that was borrowed and he defaulted repayment of the amount. But that is a money transaction for which the de facto complainant is expected to file a suit before a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Without having done so, the de facto complainant has taken a shortcut by filing a complaint before the Magistrate so as to coerce the applicant to come to terms and return the money. The applicant, therefore, prays that he may not be incarcerated and no custodial

¶35

interrogation is required as he has admitted the transaction and it is only the nature of the transaction that is disputed. He is willing to

¶36

cooperate with the investigation, and therefore, prays that he may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶37

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and

¶38

the learned Public Prosecutor as also the learned

¶39

Counsel for the de facto complainant.

¶40

Bail Appl.No.315 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

The transaction is admitted and it is made through account transfer, and therefore, the fact of payment is proved by the de facto complainant. The applicant states that it was a simple case of debt and he admits having defaulted repayment also. The de facto complainant would state that he was cheated by dishonestly inducing to deliver the amount under the promise of arranging a job for his son. The story of providing a job in Indian Railways as TTE, looks like a make-believe story because the applicant admittedly has no connection with the Railways and it is unlikely any layman would not believe that he is holding a capacity of proving employment as a TTE in the Indian Railways. Therefore, there is serious doubt regarding the payment advanced by the de facto complainant to the applicant. Custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be required, because he has admitted the transaction. It is only the nature of the transaction which needs to be inquired about. The applicant had undertaken to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he is

¶43

¶44

Bail Appl.No.315 OF 2021

¶45

entitled to a pre-arrest bail.

¶46

In the result, the bail application is allowed and

¶47

the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation, the applicant

¶48

shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond

¶49

for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two

¶50

solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the

¶51

satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶52

tamper with evidence;

¶53

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer

¶54

for a period of three months or till the final

¶55

report is filed, whichever is earlier;

¶56

(iii)During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any similar offences.

¶57

Bail Appl.No.315 OF 2021

¶58

¶59

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anilkumar 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

Jackson Vs State of Kerala

Sreejith Vs State of Kerala

Ranjith Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

A.Madhavanunni Vs State of Kerala

Ajay Kumar K. Vs State of Kerala

Blessan @ Vinod Vs State of Kerala