Allowed

Monichan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2021Bail Appl./8003/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the second accused, who allegedly canvassed deposits for UTSPL promising high interest. Finding custodial interrogation unnecessary, the Court allowed bail subject to surrender within two weeks and conditions against tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications allowed; surrender before IO within two weeks; bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties; conditions imposed.

Monichan 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

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.8003 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.947/2020 OF VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

MONICHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, EATTIKKAL HOUSE, CHENGALAM PO, AKKALAKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM. PIN-686585 BY ADVS. SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.V.C.SARATH SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031 2 SHAJI JACOB, AGED 46 YEARS, KATTOOR HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA PO, CHEMPANOLI, ATHIKKAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA PIN-689711 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – SR.PP

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8008/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.NoS.8003 & 8008 OF 2020

¶15

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶17

PRESENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶19

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942

¶20

Bail Appl..No.8008 OF 2020

¶21

CRIME NO.814/2020 OF VECHOOCHIRA POLICE STATION , PATHANAMTHITTA

¶22

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶23

MONICHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, EATTIKKAL HOUSE, CHENGALAM PO, AKKALAKUNNAM, KOTTAYAM PIN-686585

¶24

BY ADVS. SHRI.ABEL TOM BENNY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN SRI.AJEESH K.SASI SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN SRI.V.C.SARATH SMT.POOJA PANKAJ SRUTHY N. BHAT

¶25

RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031 2 JOBY K JOSE, AGED 51 YEARS,

¶27

B.A.NoS.8003 & 8008 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

KAROTTUPARA HOUSE, VECHOOCHIRA PO, CHEMPANOLI, KOLLAMULA, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶30

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶31

OTHER PRESENT:

¶32

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – SR.PP

¶33

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8003/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

B.A.NoS.8003 & 8008 OF 2020

¶35

¶36

COMMON ORDER

¶37

Dated this the 18th day of February, 2021

¶38

APPLICATIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶39

The applicant is the 2^nd accused in Crime

¶40

Nos.947/2020 and 814/2020 of Vechoochira Police Station, Pathanamthitta, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶41

The applicant, in furtherance of common intention with the other two accused, who were the entrepreneurs of Universal Trading Solutions Private Limited, allegedly dishonestly induced depositors to deposit a total sum of Rs. 80 lakhs in Crime No.947/2020 and four depositors to deposit a total sum of R s.6,50,000/ - in Crime No.814/2020, promising to pay them interest at the rate of 10% per mensem and thereafter appropriated the amount and never returned the amount. Neither the interest nor the principal amount was returned to the

¶42

B.A.NoS.8003 & 8008 OF 2020

¶43

¶44

depositors and thus they were all cheated. The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. He himself started as a depositor and he was also given some profits from the deposits he made. But, subsequently, he had made his mother and sister also to deposit some amount which was never paid and the other investors were also attracted to the deposits as the applicant was working as an agent for the other accused. Little bit he knew that the intention of the other accused was to cheat the depositors. He has no other connections with them. He is not in any way connected with the company and he understands that the company has gone into liquidation and in case, the company has its assets, the depositors may be getting their amount. The custodial interrogation of the applicant may not yield any results as he has no knowledge about where the deposits have gone and what was done on it. He was purely an agent, who had induced some depositors to invest their money in the company by offering huge interest. The applicant has no other antecedents apart from these two crimes and he is willing to co-operate with the investigation. And, therefore, seeks pre-arrest bail.

¶45

B.A.NoS.8003 & 8008 OF 2020

¶46

¶47

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The defacto complainants did not appear despite notice being served upon them. The applicant had allegedly only canvassed deposits from the defacto complainants. There is little material to indicate that he had wrongfully gained. And, hence, I find that custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary in these two crimes. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation.

¶48

In the result, the applications are allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer in these two crimes within two weeks. In the event of his being arrested, after interrogation, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following further conditions:

¶49

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶50

(ii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and

¶51

B.A.NoS.8003 & 8008 OF 2020

¶52

¶53

tamper with evidence.

¶54

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

¶55

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶56

The bail applications are allowed.

¶57

Sd/ASHOK MENON

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

NR/18/02/2021

Monichan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monichan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsudheen Paneri Vs State of Kerala

Rajeevan.v Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Ajitha Reji Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Eby Baby Vs State of Kerala