Allowed

Raji S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2021Bail Appl./4821/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of cheating under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. The court noted the defacto complainant's memo indicating no objection and lack of need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail subject to conditions including execution of a bond with sureties, appearance for interrogation, and non-interference with witnesses.

Raji S. Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

B.A.No.4821 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

BAIL APPL. NO. 4821 OF 2021

¶8

(CRIME NO.713 OF 2020 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM)

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3

¶10

1 RAJI S. AGED 35 YEARS W/O.ARUN, REJI VILASOM, ARYANKAVU P.O., PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 RAJAN K. AGED 65 YEARS S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY, REJI VILASOM, ARYANKAVU P.O., PUNALUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV S.SREEJITH

¶13

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶15

2 SARAN AGED 29 YEARS S/O.SASEEDHARAN PILLAI, SIVASAKTHY HOUSE, NEAR MUNDEM CHURCH, PANAGAD, KUMBALAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT 43/3953, THAMMANAM PAP ROAD, ERNAKULAM TOWN SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 016. BY ADVS. M.R.HARIRAJ THANUJA ROSHAN VISWAJITH C.K GANGA A.SANKAR CHACKOCHEN VITHAYATHIL GISHA G. RAJ REJIVUE VISHNU RAJAGOPAL MEERA RAMESH BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.NOUSHAD.K.A

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

08.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.4821 of 2021

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.713 of 2021 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, these petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 have moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that this petitioner along with the other accused have offered job for the defacto complainant and received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs with the dishonest intention to deceive him. No job was arranged as promised and the money thus received from the defacto complainant was misappropriated and thereby cheated the defacto complainant.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact there was no transaction between the parties and they have not committed any offence as alleged. The defacto complainant has also filed a memo to the effect that he has no objection in considering the pre-arrest bail application of these petitioners.

¶25

The memo dated 6.12.2021 filed by the defacto

¶26

B.A.No.4821 of 2021

¶27

¶28

complainant would reveal that he has actually no complaints against these petitioners. Moreover there are no materials to show that custodial interrogation of these petitioners are required in this case.

¶29

Such being the case, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to

¶30

the petitioners subject to the following conditions:

¶31

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each in the event of arrest by the police in connection with the above crime.

¶32

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

¶33

(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶34

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶35

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional court is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V

JUDGE

mpm

Raji S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raji S. 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

Munaver, Vs the State of Kerala

Visakh Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Moly Vs State of Kerala

Akkavil Dilshad Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Ali, Vs State of Kerala

Pranav.P Vs State of Kerala