Allowed

Jithin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2021Bail Appl./4192/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application in a cheating case involving forged signatures on cheques was allowed. The accused were granted liberty to surrender within ten days and released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 each with sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation with investigation and non-contact of witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to surrender within ten days; released on bail upon executing bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties each for like sum with conditions to co-operate with investigation a

Jithin Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 4192 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.737/2020 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,KOCHI

¶7

CITY

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 JITHIN AGED 35 YEARS S/O.JOSHI, KADAVATH(H), BACK SIDE OF LOURDH HOSPITAL VADUTHALA PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 012.

¶10

2 JOSHY AGED 65 YEARS S/O.CHANDRAN, KADAVATH(H), BACK SIDE OF LOURDH HOSPITAL VADUTHALA PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 012.

¶11

3 JERIN AGED 34 YEARS S/O.JOSHI, KADAVATH(H), BACK SIDE OF LOURDH HOSPITAL VADUTHALA PACHALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 012.

¶12

BY ADVS. T.B.GAFOOR BIJU MARTIN

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SHO OF POLICE, E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

¶15

2 VIJAYASANKAR S/O.SANKAR VALSAN, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.37/3835, SWAPNA CHERUPILLY ROAD,

¶16

Bail Appl.No.4192 OF 2021 2

¶17

KALOOR, KOCHI, PIN - 682 017.

¶18

BY ADVS. THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL ABISHEK JOHNY MARIA PAUL

¶19

BY SMT.SREEJA V., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

Bail Appl.No.4192 OF 2021 3

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 737/2020 of

¶24

Ernakulam Town North Police Station, which was registered on the basis of a complaint forwarded by the Magistrate, which was instituted by the second respondent alleging offence under Sections 120B, 406, 420 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second petitioner is the father of petitioners 1 and 3. It is alleged that the defacto complainant who is a returnee from United Kingdom wanted to invest money in some profitable ventures; then the first petitioner induced him and made him to invest in various schemes; thus Rs. 36.5 lakhs was obtained from him. But he was not given any return. Thereafter, four cheques were issued to the defacto complainant, out of which three were presented by him; but all the three cheques were returned stating that the signatures differ. Then, after sending statutory notices, the defacto complainant instituted three cheque cases before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Angamaly, which are now pending as C.C. Nos. 86/2021, 87/2021 and 88/2021. During the course of investigation, offences under Sections 465 and 468 are

¶25

Bail Appl.No.4192 OF 2021 4

¶26

also incorporated.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these offences will not stand in the facts of the case. The second respondent has already instituted three cases against the first petitioner alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶28

I heard the learned counsel for the second respondent

¶29

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

According to learned counsel for the second respondent, the petitioners were cheating the second respondent after collecting an amount of Rs. 36.5 lakhs; it is the hard earned money earned by him from abroad. Later when the amounts were demanded back, the petitioners had invited him to their house and threatened that they are office bearers of a political party and that amount should be forgone. Whatever it may be, in the nature of the allegations and so long as the second respondent has already instituted three cases alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it does not seem that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is warranted. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they shall co-

¶31

Bail Appl.No.4192 OF 2021 5

¶32

operate with the investigation.

¶33

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 tamper with the evidence and shall not involve in any crime during the period on bail.

¶34

The bail application is allowed as above.

Sd/-

K.HARIPAL

JUDGE

DCS/04.08.2021

Jithin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jithin 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

Nishad Vs State of Kerala

Alin a. Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Chandu Vs State of Kerala

Ansar Vs State of Kerala

Kunjumoideen @ Nisar Vs State of Kerala