Allowed

Sanoj Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Dec 2021Bail Appl./3507/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to the petitioner accused of cheating but imposed stringent conditions including an appearance bond, passport surrender, and location restrictions to balance investigation needs with personal liberty. The bail was allowed on execution of a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to stringent conditions including appearance before IO within two weeks, surrender of passport, no exit from Mannarkkad jurisdiction without permission, no witness in

Sanoj Kumar 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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR SATURDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 3507 OF 2021

¶4

(CRIME NO.90 OF 2021 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION,

¶5

PALAKKAD)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SANOJ KUMAR AGED 39 YEARS TC 5-93-1,NEAR GHS,AMBALAMUKKU,PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 691505.

¶8

BY ADV SYAM J SAM

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

2 JABIR, AGED 32 YEARS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, MANNARKADU, PALAKKAD.*

¶12

*IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 17/9/2021 IN CRL.MA.NO.3/2021

¶13

R1 BY BY SRI.T.R.RENJITH-PP R2 BY SRI.ABDUL JAWAD K. SMT.A.GRANCY JOSE

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 04.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B.A.No.3507 of 2021

¶17

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶18

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶19

B.A.No. 3507 of 2021

¶20

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2021

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶24

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.90 of 2021 of Mannarkkad Police Station, for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶25

The allegations are that the petitioner along with the 2^nd accused, who is his brother, has received Rs.30,05,000/- from the de facto complainant, who is additional 2^nd respondent herein, on giving a false assurance that the money would be invested in the business being conducted by the accused and later returned with due profit. But they did not. The petitioner and the co-accused have thus cheated the additional 2^nd respondent.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.3507 of 2021

¶29

would submit that the business transactions were between the brother of the petitioner, who is the 2^nd accused. But however, at the intervention of the investigating officer a settlement was arrived at and as part of the compromise Rs.3,00,000/was already paid to the 2^nd respondent. Stating that the transaction, at the most, is a money transaction with respect to the business involving the accused and the de facto complainant and for the repayment of the money, cheques were already issued by the accused, the learned counsel contended that arrest and detention during the period of investigation are quite unwarranted, if not illegal.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the additional 2^nd respondent would contend that after defrauding him, the petitioner and co-accused have absconded and been trying to get away from the process of law.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the incident as alleged in the F.I.Statement did occur and at the intervention of the investigation officer a part of the amount due was repaid. However, the learned Public

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.3507 of 2021

¶34

Prosecutor opposed the grant of anticipatory bail since that would adversely affect proper investigation in the matter.

¶35

Having gone through the materials on record, including the Annexures produced by the additional 2^nd respondent, what comes out is that an amount of Rs.30,05,000/- was parted by the additional 2^nd respondent with a view to invest the same in the business being conducted by the petitioner and the co-accused. It is seen that Rs.3 lakhs was repaid also. Considering the events transpired prior to and after the registration of the crime, I am of the view that the detention of the petitioner during the period of investigation is not necessary. At the same time, the petitioner cannot be allowed to be free since the possibility of his interfering with the process of investigation and collection of evidence, cannot be ruled out. The possibility of commission of similar kind of offence also has to be guarded against. In the circumstances, I am of the view that this application can be allowed with stringent conditions.

¶36

The petitioner is therefore directed to appear

¶37

¶38

B.A.No.3507 of 2021

¶39

before the Investigating Officer within two weeks from today and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs . 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) by him along with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:

¶40

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

¶41

(ii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Mannarkkad without prior permission of the Magistrate until further orders;

¶42

(iii) He shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer, and in case he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect;

¶43

(iv) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

¶44

(v) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any

B.A.No.3507 of 2021

offence.

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.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶51

dkr

Sanoj Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanoj Kumar 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

Liji Suresh Kumar Vs Anil Kumar

Antony Vs Shemeer

Abdul Salam Vs Bindu M.K

Sasidharan .C., Vs the Station House Officer

E.Padmanabhan, Vs the State of Kerala

Deepak Dinesh Vs State of Kerala