Allowed

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8650/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application regarding a cheating case, the High Court of Kerala allowed the petitioners' request for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court imposed conditions requiring appearance before the Investigating Officer and refraining from tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed; petitioners directed to appear before Investigating Officer within two weeks, on rendition of bond for Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Sunil 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 MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1943

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 8650 OF 2021

¶7

CRIME NO.1884/2021 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION,

¶8

THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1&2:

¶10

1 SUNIL KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS

¶11

S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, MEPPURATH HOUSE, MADAYIKKONAM P.O., THALIAKKONAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 712.

¶12

2 NISHA AGED 43 YEARS

¶13

W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, MEPPURATH HOUSE, MADAYIKKONAM P.O., THALIAKKONAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 712. BY ADV

¶14

SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR

¶15

RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031, (CRIME NO.1884/2021 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT).

¶17

2 SIVADASAN S/O.MAKKUNNI, KAILASAM, KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR CITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

ADV.SMT.SEENA C- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

B.A.No.8650 of 2021

¶22

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶23

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶24

B.A. No.8650 of 2021

¶25

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

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

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

¶28

The petitioners purchased vegetables from the defacto complainant during a period spanning from 2012 onwards. An amount of Rs.17,43,838/- is due from the petitioners to the defacto complainant in that business transaction. It is stated that the petitioners were conducting business and vegetables were purchased from the defacto complainant who is a wholesale dealer for their retail business. Alleging that such an amount was not paid by the petitioners with a intention to cheat the defacto complainant, the prosecution was initiated. The petitioners contend that even if the allegations are true, the same would not amount a criminal offence. They seek anticipatory bail on this ground.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor placed on record a copy of the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Town Police

¶30

¶31

B.A.No.8650 of 2021

¶32

Station, Thrissur along with the copies of the FIR and the complaint based on which the crime was registered.

¶33

Having heard the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel appearing for the applicants, I am of the view that this is a case where jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can readily be invoked. I, however, make it clear that I am not expressing any opinion about the truth or falsity of the allegations against the petitioners.

¶34

Under the above circumstances, I am inclined to allow this bail application. Hence, the bail application is allowed and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of their being arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) by them along with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, and on the following conditions:

¶35

(i) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

¶36

(ii) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or

¶37

¶38

B.A.No.8650 of 2021

¶39

tamper with evidence; and

¶40

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

¶41

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR JUDGE

¶44

Sunil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil 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

Harshakumar Vs State of Kerala

Harikumar K.G, Vs State of Kerala

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Sajil P.D. Vs State of Kerala

Gasil K.G. Vs State of Kerala

Dhanajith Vs State of Kerala