Allowed

Rahul Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2021Bail Appl./6850/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the applicants' grievance about loss was primarily due to business turnover changes requiring documentary evidence, with no need for custodial interrogation for investigation. The court allowed anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C, directing surrender within a month and setting bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Applications for anticipatory bail allowed; direction to surrender within one month; release on bail for Rs.50,000 each with sureties subject to conditions prohibiting tampering and intimidation of wi

Rahul Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.6850 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.763/2018 OF Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

RAHUL SREEKUMAR, AGED 29 YEARS, SREYAS SRWA - 84, SNEHAPURI ROAD, KARUMOM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KARUMOM 695002

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.R.MAHESH MENON SRI.DEAGO JOHN K SHRI.AMAL DEV C.V.

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 ADDL. R2 B.RADHAKRISHNAN GAYATHRI WESTHILL P.O, KOZHIKODE CITY, KERALA, PIN - 673 001 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 26/11/2020 IN CRL MA 1/2020 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.VISHNU B.KURUP R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN SMT.V.SREEJA PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6851/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Bail Appl..Nos.6850 OF 2020 & 6851 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶19

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

¶20

Bail Appl..No.6851 OF 2020

¶21

CRIME NO.763/2018 OF Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode

¶22

PETITIONER/S:

¶23

NIDHUN THANKACHAN, AGED 32 YEARS PICHAPPILLIL HOUSE, MATHA NAGAR LANE, GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682020

¶24

BY ADVS. SRI.ACHUTH KYLAS SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH SRI.DEAGO JOHN K SHRI.AMAL DEV C.V. SRI.R.MAHESH MENON

¶25

RESPONDENT/S:

¶26

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

¶27

2 ADDL.R 2 B.RADHAKRISHNAN, GAYATHRI WESTHILL P.O, KOZHIKODE CITY, KERALA PIN - 673 001 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 26/11/2020 IN CRL MA 1/2020

¶28

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.VISHNU B.KURUP R2 BY ADV. SRI.A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN

¶29

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6850/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Bail Appl..Nos.6850 OF 2020 & 6851 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

COMMON ORDER

¶33

[ Bail Appl..6850/2020, Bail Appl..6851/2020 ] Dated this the 8th day of January 2021

¶34

Applications filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶35

The applicant in BA No.6850/2020 is the first accused while the applicant in BA No.6851/2020 is the 6^th accused in Crime No.763/2018 of Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶36

The prosecution case, in brief, is that

¶37

while the applicants were working in OYO (Oravel Stays Pvt.Ltd.) in different capacities connected with business development during the year 2015 and

¶38

2016 for a period of five months, they had

¶39

allegedly in furtherance of common intention

¶40

Bail Appl..Nos.6850 OF 2020 & 6851 OF 2020

¶41

¶42

dishonestly induced the de facto complainant who is the owner of hotel named Kovilakam Residency in

¶43

Calicut get into agreement with OYO for the

¶44

purpose of marketing their hotel rooms and it is alleged that the rooms were allotted by the accused in this crime by getting into the website of the de facto complainant's hotel by deceit and the rooms were booked at a very low rate causing extensive loss of business to the de facto complainant, in consequence of which he filed a complaint in the year 2018 and the aforesaid crime was registered on 18.12.2018.

¶45

The applicants state that the allegations

¶46

are not true. It is not clear as to what exactly the nature of cheating perpetrated by the applicants and it is also stated that they had hardly worked in the aforesaid company for about five months and that too was in the year 2015-16 and the complaint comes only in the year 2018

¶47

Bail Appl..Nos.6850 OF 2020 & 6851 OF 2020

¶48

¶49

attributing the allegations to them. They are totally unaware of the aforesaid allegations which has no clarity. It is also stated that the exact loss which was allegedly sustained by the de facto complainant is also not quantified. In the event of their entering into an agreement with OYO, the de facto complainant had sustained any loss, it is only appropriate for him to raise a claim in civil court of competent jurisdiction and the applicants can no way he held responsible for cheating or the violation of the IT Act. They do not have any criminal antecedents. They are willing to cooperate with the investigation. A1 is presently employed in Ashoka University in Haryana whereas A6 is presently employed in Asianet and there is no possibility of their absconding or not cooperating with the investigation and therefore they seek pre-arrest bail in this matter.

¶50

The de facto complainant appeared through

¶51

Bail Appl..Nos.6850 OF 2020 & 6851 OF 2020

¶52

¶53

counsel and has objected to granting of

¶54

anticipatory bail to the applicants stating that because of the deeds of the applicants and the

¶55

other co-accused, the de facto complainant has sustained a loss of about Rs.30 to 35 lakhs. However, the exact quantity of the loss and the nature of the loss is yet to be ascertained.

¶56

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that

¶57

the applicants could not be questioned and the documents pertaining to the alleged cheating could not be retrieved from them and therefore custodial interrogation of the applicants is essential for the purpose of proceeding with the investigation.

¶58

After having heard the submissions on either side, I find that the grouse of the de facto complainant is primarily that after getting associated with the OYO, he had sustained a loss

¶59

of his business and that his turnover has come down for which he will have to rely on documents

¶60

Bail Appl..Nos.6850 OF 2020 & 6851 OF 2020

¶61

pertaining to his accounts. The fact regarding the

¶62

contribution of the applicants in the loss

¶63

sustained by the de facto complainant and

¶64

regarding their illegal enrichment also will have to be examined. The applicants are willing to co-

¶65

operate with the investigation. I find that

¶66

custodial interrogation of the applicants may not be necessary and there is no possibility of their absconding.

¶67

Under the circumstances, the applications

¶68

for anticipatory bail are allowed and the

¶69

applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within one month, and after interrogation and recovery, in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of bonds for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶70

investigating officer and on the following

¶71

Bail Appl..Nos.6850 OF 2020 & 6851 OF 2020

¶72

¶73

conditions;

¶74

i. They shall not tamper with evidence,

¶75

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶76

ii. They shall appear before the

¶77

investigating officer as and when called for.

¶78

iii. They shall not get involved in similar

¶79

offences during the bail period.

¶80

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶81

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Rahul Sreekumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Sreekumar 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

Dr.Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sainul Abidheen Vs State of Kerala

Sainul Abidheen Vs State of Kerala

Bhoopendra Rawat Vs Public Prosecutor