Allowed

Vishnuraj C.R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Sept 2021Bail Appl./6213/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam allowed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 420 IPC. The court rejected the prosecution's claim that the accused collected money, accepting the petitioner's version that the defacto complainant allegedly collected the funds and filed a false complaint.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on Rs.50,000 with two sureties for like amount, subject to appearance for interrogation and not tampering with witnesses.

Vishnuraj C.R. Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 6213 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO. 1036 OF 2021 OF MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

VISHNURAJ C.R. AGED 25 YEARS S/O.RAJAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CONTROL YES L L P., DIVINE HOSPITAL BUILDING, VADAKKENCHERY P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 683.

¶9

BY ADV BABY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA POLICE STATION, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 661.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

MANU.P.G- SR.P.P

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.6213/2021

ORDER

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶20

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 1036 of

¶21

2021 of Muvattupuzha Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this application for pre-arrest bail.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that with the intention to cheat certain people, the petitioner had received in total an amount of Rs.13,70,000/- offering job abroad. But subsequently failed to arrange job or to return the amount and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he has not collected any amount as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, he is running an institution for arranging admission to students in Latvia for studies. But he never offered job for anyone as alleged by the prosecution. But he apprehends arrest.

¶24

B.A.6213/2021

¶25

¶26

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, as directed by the investigating officer, the petitioner appeared before him and he was interrogated and thereafter left free.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that the case has been initiated against this petitioner on the basis of a complaint forwarded to the police, filed by the defacto complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Muvattupuzha. As per the instructions, investigation was conducted by the investigating agency and it was found that in fact the amount has been collected by the defacto complainant himself and not by this petitioner and now the investigation is in progress.

¶28

Since it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that actually the amount was received by the defacto complainant himself, and then moved the complaint against the petitioner, and that the investigation of the case is well in

¶29

B.A.6213/2021

¶30

¶31

progress, I find that this petitioner is having a good case so as

¶32

to entitle him to get an order of pre-arrest bail as sought for.

¶33

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

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on his 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.

¶35

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

¶36

(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 or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶37

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

¶38

B.A.6213/2021

¶39

¶40

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in

¶41

accordance with the law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.

JUDGE

Vishnuraj C.R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnuraj 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

Sojan Vs State of Kerala

Antony Paul Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Abhijit S. Nair Vs State of Kerala

Fayis Pullattil, Vs State of Kerala

Omkary Venkidesh Vs State of Kerala