Allowed

Nirmalan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8761/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to two accused persons charged with cheating the government by falsely recording government land as theirs in a settlement deed. The court held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary due to pending civil litigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; petitioners directed to appear within two weeks; if arrested, release on bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties.

Nirmalan 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 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8761 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1633 OF 2021 OF MARAYAMUTTAM POLICE STATION,

¶7

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 NIRMALAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.DAMODHARA PANICKER, LATHA NIVAS, KUTTAMALA, VAZHICHAL VILLAGE.

¶10

2 JAYA KUMAR AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. KARUNAKARA PANICKER, POTTANCHIRA VEEDU, PULIYOORSALA, PANACHAMOODU P.O., KUNNATHUKAL VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADV SHAJIN S.HAMEED

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶15

SMT C.SEENA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 14.12.2021, THE COURT ON 16.12.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

B.A.No.8761 of 2021

¶19

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶20

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

¶21

B.A.No. 8761 of 2021

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2021

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 5 in Crime

¶26

No.1633 of 2021 of Marayamuttam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The offences alleged against them are punishable under Section 420 of the I.P.C. and Section 7(b) (1)(ii) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 2009.

¶27

0.40 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.15/1

¶28

of Keezharoor Village in Kattakkada Taluk is a puramboke land. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1633 of 2021 are the owners of 2.53 Ares of land comprised in Re-survey No.201/2 of Vellarada Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk. Accused Nos.1 and 2 executed settlement deed No.240/2009 of Perumkadavila S.R.O. in favour of accused Nos.5 and 6 with respect to the aforesaid two items of property. The 3^rd accused is the

¶29

¶30

B.A.No.8761 of 2021

¶31

Document Writer and the 4^th accused is the Sub Registrar. The first item property, 0.40 Ares of land in Re-survey No.15/1 was included in the document by the accused knowing fully well that the same is a Government puramboke land and accused Nos.1 and 2 do not have title to or possession of the said property. The accused did so with an intention of grabbing the said property by cheating the Government.

¶32

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

¶33

The settlement deed in question was registered as early as in 2009. The fact that the Government property was also included in the said document came to light when accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the District Registrar to get the settlement deed corrected by deleting the said item of property. The object behind including the said property in the document, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, was to get the settlement deed registered in a different Sub Registrar Office and not with an intention to illegally garner the property. When it is categorically recited in

¶34

¶35

B.A.No.8761 of 2021

¶36

the document that accused Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of that property and they have been transferring title to the same in favour of accused Nos.5 and 6, it is not able to accept at this stage, the contention that the object behind including the said item of property in the document was just for conferring jurisdiction upon a different Sub Registrar. At any rate, that act amounted to fraud upon registration.

¶37

Be that as it may, the entire evidence pertaining to the commission of the alleged offence is borne by records. Of course, the intention part may have to be proved by relying on oral evidence as well. Considering the nature of the offence, I am of the view that custodial interrogation and detention of the petitioners during the period of investigation is unnecessary, especially when the dispute is already taken up by the State before a civil court by filing O.S.No.98 of 2021 before the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara.

¶38

In view of what are stated above, I allow this petition. The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and in the event of

¶39

¶40

B.A.No.8761 of 2021

¶41

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:

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

dkr

Nirmalan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmalan 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

Abimon Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan @ Ganapathi Assari Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs the State of Kerala

Prameela, Vs State of Kerala

Legeesh S.L. Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Illyas, Vs State of Kerala