Allowed

Nidheesh C.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2021Bail Appl./504/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Kerala held that the dispute between the applicants and the complainant appeared civil and contractual. Finding no likelihood of absconding and prima facie evidence of a civil dispute, the Court allowed the bail application subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants directed to surrender within two weeks; released on bail upon execution of bond with sureties under specified conditions.

Nidheesh C.R. 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

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.504 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.410/2019 OF Mannarkkad Police Station , Palakkad

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 NIDHEESH C.R. AGED 39 YEARS CHUNDAYIL HOUSE, VALAKKARA, THENKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678761.

¶9

2 NIKHIL C.R AGED 32 YEARS CHUNDAYIL HOUSE, VALAKKARA, THENKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678761.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

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

¶13

2 SANDEEP A.V. AGED 38 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, COCOON APPARELS, P.O. THENKARA, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT – 678761.

¶14

R1 BY SMT.V.SREEJA -PP

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Bail Appl.No.504 OF 2021

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Dated this the 12th day of March 2021

¶21

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

¶22

The applicants are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.410/2019 of Mannarkkad Police Station for having

¶23

allegedly committed the offences punishable under

¶24

Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.; under Section 43 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 and under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.

¶25

The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the period 2015 and 2019, the applicants and other accused had in furtherance of common intention dishonestly induced the de facto complainant, who was the Managing Partner of a firm named “Cocoon Apparels”

¶26

at Thenkara in Mannarkkad Taluk to deliver a sum of

¶27

Rs.10,000/- under the guise of the applicants preparing

¶28

¶29

Bail Appl.No.504 OF 2021

¶30

a Website and Domain for the branded garments produced by the de facto complainant’s company. The applicants were allegedly conducting an I.T. firm under the name style “Shaun Tech” at Mannarkkad. Subsequently, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was also delivered to the applicants by the de facto complainant and thus altogether they received a sum of Rs.60,000/-, but did not prepare the Website and Domain as agreed and thereafter they prepared a dummy website link and circulated it among

¶31

the social media stating that the site has been temporarily recalled for the reason that that the client has not made payment for the same and thus tarnished the image of the de facto complainant’s company and to delete that from the public domain, they demanded a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs from the de facto complainant and thus threatened them. Due to this

¶32

activity of the applicants and the other accused, the de facto complainant’s company allegedly sustained a

¶33

damage to the tune of Rs.25 crores and thus the applicants were allegedly committed the offences.

¶34

Bail Appl.No.504 OF 2021

¶35

¶36

The applicants state that the allegations are not true and if at all true, it is only a contractual liability, which has to be sorted out by a civil court of competent jurisdiction. The applicants have completed work, but they were not paid the amount due to them and under the circumstances the de facto

¶37

complainant has to approach a civil court of competent

¶38

jurisdiction in case the work is not completed according to the satisfaction of the de facto

¶39

complainant. The applicants have no criminal

¶40

antecedents, they are willing to cooperate with the investigation and are not likely to flee from justice, hence, they seek pre-arrest bail.

¶41

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and

¶42

the learned Public Prosecutor. The de facto

¶43

complainant did not appear despite being served with the notice.

¶44

Taking into account the entire facts and

¶45

circumstances of this case, I find that the applicants

¶46

are not likely to flee from justice and are ready to

¶47

¶48

Bail Appl.No.504 OF 2021

¶49

cooperate with the investigation. Prima facie the dispute between the applicants and the de facto complainant appears to be civil and contractual in nature. Hence, the applicants are entitled to prearrest bail.

¶50

As a result, the bail application is allowed and

¶51

the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of

¶52

arrest, after interrogation and recovery, the

¶53

applicants shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each, with two solvent sureties for the like amount

¶54

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

¶55

(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶56

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer

¶57

as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation; and

¶58

Bail Appl.No.504 OF 2021

¶59

¶60

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

¶61

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

Nidheesh C.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nidheesh C.R. 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

R Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Ahammed Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Marjahan K M Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Das Vs State of Kerala

P.M. Muhammed Subair Vs State of Kerala

Ismayil Vs State of Kerala