Allowed

Susilkumar E.K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021Bail Appl./5801/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused person facing charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. Bail was granted subject to executing a bond with sureties, cooperating with the trial, and maintaining silence and refraining from further offences.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with one lakh bond and two sureties, conditioned to cooperate with trial and not tamper with witnesses or commit offences

Susilkumar E.K Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 5801 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 71/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

¶7

- II, PERAMBRA

¶8

CRIME NO. 286 OF 2016 OF PERUVANNAMUZHI POLICE STATION

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

SUSILKUMAR E.K., AGED 54 YEARS S/O.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT GOKULAM HOUSE, KALPATTA, FORMERLY MANAGING DIRECTOR, JANAKSHEMA MARUTHI CHITS PVT. LTD. ROYAL PLAZA, KALPATTA

¶11

BY ADV C.V.JITHESH

¶12

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND THE COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM

¶14

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PERUVANNAMUZHI POLICE STATION, PERUVANNAMUZHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT 673526

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

NOUSHAD.K.A- SR.PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.5801/2021

ORDER

Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2021

¶22

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 286 of 2016 of Peruvannamoozhi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The prosecution allegation in brief is as follows:

¶24

The petitioner is the Managing Director of Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits Pvt. Ltd (for short 'the Company').

¶25

The other accused are the Directors of the Company. Their headquarters was at Kalpetta. The accused had induced the defacto complainant to subscribe a chity run by the Company and obtained Rs.4,12,500/- from him on different occasions from 19.03.2013 to 19.11.2015. After completion of the term of the chitty, the accused failed to pay the amount due to the defacto complainant and thus cheated him and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶26

B.A.5801/2021

¶27

¶28

The petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2021.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

¶30

in Company Petition No. 43 of 2016 by a judgment dated 4^th February, 2019 the Company was wound up under the provisions of the Companies Act and an Official Liquidator was appointed. The Official Liquidator has taken over the assets and records of the Company and the proceedings are going on. So, this petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submits that now the investigation of the case is over and charge sheet has been submitted before the jurisdictional court.

¶32

Annexure -II is the judgment of this court in Co.Pet. No. 43 of 2016 and now the Official Liquidator is appointed and he has taken over the assets and the records of the Company. Moreover, now investigation of the case is over and final report has been submitted and so, further detention of this petitioner is found absolutely unnecessary.

¶33

B.A.5801/2021

¶34

¶35

Therefore, this application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner 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.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶40

the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

Susilkumar E.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susilkumar E.K v. the 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

Raji S. Vs State of Kerala

Akkavil Dilshad Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Ali, Vs State of Kerala

Saseendran Nair R Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sunilkumar E.K Vs the State of Kerala