Allowed

Visakh Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2021Bail Appl./6959/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a bail application filed by Visakh Kumar, a 58-year-old accused charged with cheating under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, after finding evidentiary gaps regarding prosecution claims of non-relation to the Society funds and insufficient grounds for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to appearance before IO, no new offence, and cooperation with investigation.

Visakh Kumar, 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 DECEMBER 2021 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 6959 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.603/2019 OF Kodumon Police Station, Pathanamthitta

¶6

PETITIONER/APPLICANT/SOLE ACCUSED :-

¶7

VISAKH KUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. NARAYANA KURUP, MAKKADAYATHU VEEDU, PONGALADI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 579

¶8

BY ADVS. ARUN SAMUEL JITHIN BABU A

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE 0F KERALA & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :-

¶10

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

¶11

2 RESHMA, AGED (NOT KNOWN), W/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, PONGALADI, PANDALAM, THEKKAKARA, KODUMON, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT AND NOW RESIDING AT MANGALATHU VEEDU, KUNNATHOOKKARA, PERINGANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691 551

¶12

BY SRI.NOUSHAD K.A., SR.PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 6959 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner is the former President of a Society by name “Thattayil Agricultural Improvement Society” located at Kodumon in Pathanamthitta District. He preferred this application apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.603 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The prosecution allegation is that this petitioner the then President and the second accused the Secretary of the said Society under the pretext that they would provide employment to the defacto complainant, together received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in the year 2017. But failed to provide the employment as offered by them. They also failed to return the amount and thereby cheated her and thus this crime has been registered.

¶19

BAIL APPL. NO. 6959 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

Heard both sides.

¶22

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶23

is that he was the President of the Society during 2019. At that time, the Society had given employment to certain persons including this petitioner. The appointment was after conducting an examination and interview. The candidates who appeared in the rank list alone were provided with the employment. As per the decision of the Administrative Committee dated 01.12.2017, the defacto complainant along with 10 others were provided employment in the Society. She was appointed as peon of the Society and she had joined service in the year 2017 itself. Thereafter, she received salary and she remained in service for about one year. One fine morning, she came to the office and took all the registers and other documents from the Society and left the place. Immediately, a complaint was lodged against her by the Administrative Committee and a crime was also registered against her and it is pending. Civil

¶24

suit was also filed against her and that is also pending before the

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 6959 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. But this petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he was compelled to approach this court with this application.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submits that

¶29

the investigation of the case is well in progress. But the details regarding the payment of salary could not been ascertained due to the absence of documents in the Soceity.

¶30

Annexure-A2 is the decision taken by the Administrative Committee in the meeting held on 01.12.2017 and that the 1^st agenda would reveal that the Committee had decided to appoint certain persons as peon in the Society. So as per the decision dated 01.12.2017, 11 persons have been appointed as peons in the Society. The defacto complainant was the first person in the rank list, which was prepared by the Society on the basis of the mark secured by the candidates and thus she was appointed and she joined service.

¶31

Annexure-A3 series would indicate that the defacto

¶32

BAIL APPL. NO. 6959 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

complainant had received salary from the Society at the rate of Rs.4,000/- during the year 2018. Therefore, it is prima facie revealed

¶35

that she was employed there and she had received salary from the Society. But whether the petitioner had received money as alleged

¶36

by the prosecution, is a matter to be probed into in detail. But the materials are not sufficient to conclude that custodial interrogation

¶37

is inevitable for the investigating agency to proceed with the investigation of the case.

¶38

Considering the nature of accusation levelled against this petitioner as well the fact that this petitioner is aged 58 years, I am

¶39

inclined to allow this application subject to the following conditions :-

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on 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 in the event of his arrest.

¶41

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing. (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail. (iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the trial and investigation of the case.

¶42

BAIL APPL. NO. 6959 OF 2021

¶43

¶44

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned

¶45

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

Sd/-

SHIRCY V.,

JUDGE

SMA

Visakh Kumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Visakh Kumar, 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

Sarath Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Kumar P.S., Vs State of Kerala

Usman Kunhi P.H Vs State of Kerala

Munaver, Vs the State of Kerala

Moly Vs State of Kerala

Anilkumar @ Kuttan Vs State of Kerala