Allowed

David Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8666/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court of Kerala allowed anticipatory bail application filed by religious preachers accused of cheating. Court dismissed custodial interrogation as unnecessary and granted bail subject to conditions including surrender, travel restrictions, and bond execution.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; surrender within two weeks; bond of Rs. 50,000 each with two sureties; restrictions on travel abroad and influencing witnesses.

David Joseph 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

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8666 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.761 OF 2021 OF CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION,

¶7

ALAPPUZHA

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 DAVID JOSEPH, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. AUGUSTY JOSEPH, PASTOR, SPIRITUAL REVIVAL MISSION, REVIVAL CHURCH OF GOD, RESIDING AT INTERNATIONAL COTTAGE, KAITHAPARAMBU P.O, ENATHU, ADOOR, KOLLAM - 691526.

¶10

2 SOSAMMA DAVID, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. DAVID JOSEPH, INTERNATIONAL COTTAGE, KAITHAPARAMBU P.O, ENATHU, ADOOR, KOLLAM - 691526.

¶11

3 ESTHER DAVID, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. DAVID JOSEPH, INTERNATIONAL COTTAGE, KAITHAPARAMBU P.O, ENATHU, ADOOR, KOLLAM – 691526.

¶12

4 ELIZABATH DAVID, AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. DAVID JOSEPH, INTERNATIONAL COTTAGE, KAITHAPARAMBU P.O, ENATHU, ADOOR, KOLLAM – 691526.

¶13

BY ADV B.MOHANLAL

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

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

¶16

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHENGANNUR POLICE STATION, CHENGANNUR P.O,

¶17

¶18

B.A.No.8666 of 2021

¶19

ALAPPUZHA - 689121.

¶20

3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 689121.

¶21

4 ALWIN T.ABRAHAM, S/O.T.M. ABRAHAM, CHANDAVELIL VEEDU, MANGALAM MURI, CHENGANNUR VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR P.O, ALAPPUZHA.

¶22

SMT C.SEENA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶23

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 17.12.2021, THE COURT ON 21.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

B.A.No.8666 of 2021

¶26

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶27

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

¶28

B.A.No. 8666 of 2021

¶29

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

¶30

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2021 O R D E R

¶31

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

¶32

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶33

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.761 of 2021 of Chengannur Police Station. The offences alleged are under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

¶34

The petitioners gained acquaintance with Smt. Suja

¶35

Sebastian and family through the defacto complaint. The petitioners, under the guise of rendering evangelical services and misusing the active confidence Smt.Suja Sebastian and members of her family reposed on them, extracted money on several occasions from her and members of her family totalling Rs.40 lakhs. The petitioners so collected money with the intention of cheating Smt.Suja Sebastian and members of her family. Not only that the petitioners refused to return the money, but also they are now threatening Smt.Suja Sebastian and her husband, as they demanded refund.

¶36

¶37

B.A.No.8666 of 2021

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶39

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record

¶40

the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Chengannur Police Station.

¶41

The 4^th respondent is the de facto complainant. He is not the victim of the alleged offence. Considering the report submitted by the investigating officer, notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶42

The 1^st petitioner is a Pastor of Revival Church of God, Adoor. The 2^nd petitioner is his wife and petitioners 3 and 4 are their children. All are involved in evangelical activities. Victim, Smt.Suja Sebastian, her husband, and their children, who are residing in New York allegedly happened to fall prey to the deceptive design of the petitioners that they would bring peace of mind and cure diseases by prayers and preachings. The complaint was lodged alleging that around Rs.40 lakhs was extracted from Smt.Suja Sebastian and other members of her family by the petitioners.

¶43

¶44

B.A.No.8666 of 2021

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that very genesis of the complaint is dubious inasmuch as it was filed before the Magistrate Court at Chengannur; while the allegations are to the effect that the offence was committed at a totally different place, at Adoor. The complaint was filed by Alwin T.Abraham, 4^th respondent, who has no connection with the transaction but claiming that Smt.Suja Sebastian is his niece. The oblique motive of said Alwin T.Abraham to exert pressure on the petitioners in order to get money from them is quite evident and in such circumstances the petitioners are entitled to get anticipatory bail, the learned counsel submits.

¶46

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that under the cover of evangelical services,the petitioners not only extracting money from innocent persons, but also ruining the families. The learned Public Prosecutor maintains that acts of the petitioners were so sinister that innocent peoples are cheated in the name of God. It is further submitted that in order to complete the investigation in a satisfactory way,

¶47

¶48

B.A.No.8666 of 2021

¶49

custodial interrogation of the petitioners is absolutely necessary.

¶50

If the allegations are true, the offences thereby committed are so serious. After getting confidence, in the name of God and under the guise of rendering evangelical services, the petitioners alleged to have exploited the trust and extracted money for their personal gains. Such a kind of breach of trust and cheating innocent persons certainly is unpardonable. However, how far their custodial interrogation and detention during the period of investigation is required, has not been explained by the learned Public Prosecutor. The alleged transaction took place during 2018. When the crime was registered in 2021, immediate arrest and detention even before the investigating agency comes to a prima facie finding regarding commission of the offence may not be justified. It is more so since the allegations are regarding payment of money and the allegation of commission of offence in relation to such payment of money. It may be noted that the statement of Smt.Suja Sebastian or any members of her

¶51

¶52

B.A.No.8666 of 2021

¶53

family, from whom the money was collected by the petitioners, are not so far recorded. Taking into all such matters, I am of the view the petitioners are entitled to get pre-arrest bail.

¶54

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

¶55

(i) Once released on bail, they shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

¶56

(ii) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chengannur without prior permission of the Magistrate until further orders;

¶57

(iii) They shall not go abroad without the permission of the

¶58

¶59

B.A.No.8666 of 2021

¶60

jurisdictional Court and shall surrender their passports before the investigating officer, and in case they do not

¶61

have passport, they shall file affidavits to that effect;

¶62

(iv) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

¶63

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

¶64

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall

¶65

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

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶68

dkr

David Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

David Joseph 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

Mohammed Musthafa T.V Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ismail E.K. Vs State of Kerala

Arunputhran (Shaji) Vs State of Kerala

Anitha Babu, Vs State of Kerala

Shaji., Vs the State of Kerala

Thoufeeq Vs State of Kerala