Allowed

Dhanajith v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8625/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by a 25-year-old engineering graduate who was the third accused in a fraud case involving Rs.69 lakhs, holding that prima facie he was persuaded by the first accused to part with money.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; direction to surrender within two weeks; bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each; conditions imposed against influencing witnesses or committing further offences.

Dhanajith Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 8625 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.2680 OF 2020 OF KARUNGAPPALLY POLICE STATION,

KOLLAM DISTRICT

PETITIONER:

DHANAJITH

AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, PAVUMPA VADAKKEMURI, KARUNGAPPALLI P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 518.

¶10

BY ADV M.G.SREEJITH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KARUNGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, KARUNGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 690 518.

¶14

ADV. SEENA C- PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶16

ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON 09.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

B.A.No.8625 of 2021

¶19

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶20

----------------------------------------------------------B.A.No. 8625 of 2021

¶21

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of December, 2021

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶24

The petitioner is the 3^rd accused in Crime No.2680 of 2020 of Karunagappally Police Station. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 120B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶25

The petitioner and his father Sri.Muraleedharan along with one Geetha Rani have allegedly committed the offence. The 1^st accused Geetha Rani claimed to have high influence on Railway authorities and she would be able to arrange to get employment in the Railway as Ticket Examiner. On giving that impression, the 1^st accused with the aid and connivance of the petitioner and his father, extracted money from persons including the de facto complaint. An amount of Rs.69 lakhs was so collected at Luciya Hotel, Ernakulam

¶26

¶27

B.A.No.8625 of 2021

¶28

during the days 30.01.2019 and 09.02.2019. They have given forged appointment letter to the de facto complainant and taken him to Thiruchirappally under the guise of attending training. The money so collected was appropriated by the accused. Thereby they have allegedly committed the offences. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner also was a victim of the offence and it was the 1^st accused, who cheated all the persons. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an Engineering Graduate and is aged only 25 years. It was out of his eagerness to get a job, he happened to become prey to the sinister acts of the 1st accused and, in the event of his detaining in prison, his future prospects will be shattered.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor based on the statement of facts furnished by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karunagappally, would submit that the accused Nos.1 and 2 were already arrested. This petitioner absconded and

¶31

¶32

B.A.No.8625 of 2021

¶33

therefore he could not be arrested. It is further contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that if the petitioner is granted bail that will adversely affect the investigation.

¶34

Annexure A2 is a copy of the complaint submitted by the de facto complainant before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karungappally, based on which the crime was registered. Annexure A3 is a similar complaint submitted by the 2^nd accused, father of the petitioner, against the 1^st accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. In Annexure A3 the allegations are that the 1^st accused received money from the 2^nd accused on giving a false assurance that his son would be provided with employment in the Indian Railways. The very allegation in the F.I.R., Annexure A1, is that the 2^nd and 3^rd accused made the de facto complainant believed that the 1^st accused has very high influence on the Railway authorities.

¶35

The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate having all the aspirations and expectations in life. He has no criminal antecedents. It appears prima facie that he was also

¶36

¶37

B.A.No.8625 of 2021

¶38

persuaded by the 1^st accused to part with money by making him believed that he would get an employment in the Railways. I am not expressing any opinion about the truth or falsity of those contentions. However, in the nature of the allegations made in Annexure A1 and circumstances pointed out above, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶39

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶40

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

¶41

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for; and

¶42

¶43

B.A.No.8625 of 2021

¶44

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

¶45

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

¶46

jurisdictional court.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

dkr

Dhanajith v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanajith 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

Harshakumar Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar K.G, Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sajil P.D. Vs State of Kerala

Gasil K.G. Vs State of Kerala