Allowed

Rajamanickam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Sept 2021Bail Appl./6007/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to three accused (Nos. 3-5) charged with cheating and forgery. The court found no evidence of their involvement in the alleged financial transaction or agreement execution, limiting their roles to conducting staff interviews as directed by the primary accused.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail subject to surrender for interrogation, execution of bond, and conditions regarding tampering and committing offenses.

Rajamanickam Vs State of Kerala — Intellectual Property | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 6007 OF 2021

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1199/2021 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 3 TO 5:

¶7

1 RAJAMANICKAM, AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MURUGAN, HOUSE NO.53CD/20W, MANINGARAM IST STREET, UTHAMPALAYAM, CUMBUM, THENI, TAMILNADU - 625 516. 2 SUNIL J.G.M., AGED 37 YEARS S/O.MANICKAM, 7/148D BHARATHI NAGAR, PODANUR, COIMBATORE SOUTH, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU - 641 023. 3 THIAGARAJAN S/O.PALANISAMY, HOUSE NO.A-4, ARUMUGHAM AVENUE, IRUVUR, COIMBATORE, TAMILNADU - 641 103. BY ADVS. M.B.SHYNI RAJESH KUMAR R. PAREETH LUTHUFIN K.B. RAMEES P.K. ERFANA PARAMBADAN NANDU S KUMAR DAKSHINA SARASWATHY

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

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

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

MANU.P.G- SR.P.P

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON 08.09.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.6007/2021

ORDER

Dated this the 8^th day of September, 2021

¶17

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 164 of 2021 of Kadavanthra Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 65, 43(i) read with Section 66 of the Information Technologies Act, the petitioners, who are the accused Nos. 3 to 5, have moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶18

The allegation of the prosecution in short is as

¶19

follows:

¶20

The defacto complainant is the Proprietor of OIYEZ Business Solutions. He has developed a software by name 'Enterprise Resource Planning' and the 1^st accused along with the other accused approached the defacto complainant with a proposal to purchase the same and an agreement was executed

¶21

on 19.10.2018 fixing the total consideration as

¶22

B.A.6007/2021

¶23

¶24

Rs.1,10,00,000/-. The staff of the defacto complainant were also hired by the 1^st accused, who was running a Company by name West Line High Tech, for the period from January, 2019 till November, 2019 and purchased the software by forging certain documents. He has forged a letter as if it was issued by the Reserve Bank of India so as to make the defacto complainant believe that the amount would be paid as agreed. But, later, the amount has not been paid as promised by him and he has also not paid salary for the employees of the defacto complainant hired by him for the functioning of the software in his company and thereby cheated the defacto complainant as well his employees. When the money was demanded he had also threatened him, his family members and staff with dire consequences.

¶25

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the company by name West Line High Tech is owned by the 1^st accused alone. The petitioners herein, who are arraigned as accused Nos. 3 to 5 were just employed to conduct interview in

¶26

B.A.6007/2021

¶27

¶28

connection with the selection of the staff of the defacto complainant to engage in the company owned by the 1^st accused. But they have absolutely no connection with the transaction between the 1^st accused and the defacto complainant. In fact, as the staff of the company owned by the 1^st accused, they have only conducted an interview of the members of the staff of the defacto complainant, that too as per the direction of the 1^st accused. Now the 1^st accused and the 2^nd accused have already been released on bail as per an order dated 29.04.2021 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam. These petitioners apprehend arrest though they have absolutely no connection with the alleged transaction.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that it is true that bail has been granted to accused Nos. 1 and 2. But the investigation with respect to the transaction in which the accused have cheated the defacto complainant has to be probed into in detail and granting of bail at this stage will definitely affect the case adversely. Hence, this application is opposed.

¶30

B.A.6007/2021

¶31

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well

¶33

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

The materials so far collected by the investigating agency would reveal that in fact an agreement was executed between the defacto complainant and the 1^st accused regarding the purchase of the software by name 'Enterprise Resource Planning'. As such it is not revealed that these petitioners have any role in execution of the agreement or with regard to the alleged money transaction. True that the investigating agency has not recovered the crucial document which is the agreement referred above. But, as these petitioners are not parties to the agreement, it is not necessary to have custodial interrogation of these petitioners so as to recover the document especially when bail has been granted to accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the court below just considering the pandemic situation of our country. Prima facie, it is clear that these petitioners were only engaged by the 1^st accused to conduct an interview of the staff of the company of the defacto complainant as the first step of the

¶35

B.A.6007/2021

¶36

¶37

alleged purchase of the software by the 1^st accused and they

¶38

have no participation or role in the further procedure adopted by the 1^st accused. The materials on record indicate that, they only conducted the interview of the staff for selection that too as entrusted by the 1^st accused. Hence, I think it appropriate to allow this petition for pre-arrest bail.

¶39

The petitioners are directed to surrender before the investigating officer on 13.09.2021 between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. Upon their surrender, after interrogation and recording their arrest, they shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶40

(i) The petitioners shall be released on bail on each of them 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 investigating officer.

¶41

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

¶42

B.A.6007/2021

¶43

¶44

(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.

¶45

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

¶46

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate/Judge is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

SHIRCY V JUDGE

¶49

Rajamanickam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamanickam 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

Abhijit S. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Fayis Pullattil, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnuraj C.R. Vs State of Kerala

Anshif, Vs the State of Kerala

Nandakumar Vs State of Kerala

Shan Vs State of Kerala