Allowed

Kp Sajith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2021Bail Appl./3446/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Payara granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case arising from a villa construction dispute, imposing conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer, surrendering passport, and restraining from leaving the district.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed. Bail granted contingent on execution of bond, surrender of passport, appearance within seven days, and adherence to specified conditions.

Kp Sajith Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 3446 OF 2021

¶6

(Crime No.304 of 2021 dated 07.04.2021 of Kannur Town Police Station, Kannur District)

¶7

(Under Section 8 of the High Court Act)

¶8

PETITIONER/5th ACCUSED:

¶9

KP SAJITH AGED 47 YEARS S/O.BHARATHAN, AGED 47 YEARS, BHARATH VILLA, VILLA NO.1, SNOW DROPS VILLA, NEAR OLD EDAKKAD BLOCK OFFICE, KIZHUNNA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 007

¶10

BY ADV SHAJI THOMAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN POLICE STATION, AGED 50 YEARS KANNUR DISTRICT-670001

¶14

SMT. SREEJA V-PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

21.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 3446 OF 2021 2

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the first accused in crime No.304/2021 of Kannur Town Police Station. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint preferred before court which was forwarded to the police for investigation. Accordingly, offence under Sections 120B, 406, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C is alleged against the petitioner and the other accused. The petitioner is a builder. It is stated that claiming himself as a director of a company, he undertook a villa project by name and style 'Leisure Valley'; the project was started in 2013; an amount of Rs.70,50,000/- has already been obtained from the defacto complainant. But by the time the complaint was preferred, the construction was not completed and thus alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating etc., the complaint was filed in 2021.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶21

petitioner.

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 3446 OF 2021 3

¶23

purely a civil dispute between himself and the defacto complainant, that an amount of

¶24

Rs.54,00,000/- alone was paid and more than

¶25

Rs.14,75,000/- is still due and that was why the construction was delayed. According to him, there is absolutely no need for the custodian interrogation of the petitioner.

¶26

construction which had started in 2013 is still half way, there is allegation that the standard of construction is not up to the agreement between parties. There is also another crime No.309/2021 on

¶27

the same lines against the petitioner. Similarly, the Registrar of the companies has been moved for ascertaining the status of the petitioner and investigation is not yet progressed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant submits that there are numerous other complaints against the petitioner and if he is granted

¶29

anticipatory bail and allowed to go scot free, he is

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 3446 OF 2021 4

¶31

likely to leave the place and all the persons similarly placed would be put in trouble.

¶32

After hearing counsel on both sides and also

¶33

considering the fact situation, I do not think that this is a case requiring custodial interrogation. At the same time, the interest of persons like the

¶34

defacto complainant who have entrusted their hard earned money has to be protected. Therefore,the petition is allowed; in the event of the petitioner surrendering before the investigating officer, he

¶35

shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶36

i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within seven days from today and will make himself available for interrogation;

¶37

ii) In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶38

iii) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Judicial First Magistrate, Kannur within ten days from today; if he

¶39

BAIL APPL. NO. 3446 OF 2021 5

¶40

does not possess a passport, an affidavit shall be filed to that effect;

¶41

iv) He shall not leave Kannur judicial district;

¶42

v) He shall report before the Investigating

¶43

Officer every Monday between 10 AM and 12 PM, till the final report is laid;

¶44

vi) He shall co-operate with investigation, shall not try to contact or influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶45

vii) He shall not involve himself in any crime during the period on bail;

¶46

viii) He shall strictly follow the various

¶47

guidelines issued by the State and Central Governments with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic;

¶48

ix) If any of the above conditions are

¶49

violated by the petitioners, the

¶50

jurisdictional court shall be at liberty

¶51

to cancel the bail, in accordance with

law.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

LEK

Kp Sajith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kp Sajith 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

N.a.Sasidharan Vs Ragesh

Jayakumar K.J. Vs George Thomas

Karuppuswami, Vs State of Kerala

Shibin N Jose Vs State of Kerala

Jasim Malik Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala