Allowed

Anu P. Chandrasekharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2021Bail Appl./9033/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC for alleged cheating under Sections 406 and 420 IPC regarding defective face mask supply, the High Court held that custodial interrogation is not required given the documentary nature of the transaction.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on surrender within two weeks, execution of bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties worth Rs.50,000 each, and standard conditions regarding passport and interference with witnes

Anu P. Chandrasekharan Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/24TH AGRAHAYANA,1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 9033 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.2074 OF 2021 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,

¶7

ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

ANU P. CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶10

AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. LATE P. CHANDRASEKHARAN, RESIDING IN FLAT NO. 16-B, TOWER 1, DD PLATINUM PLANET APARTMENT, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR - ERNAKULAM – 682017.

¶11

BY ADV K.N.CHANDRABABU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM POLICE STATION, PIN – 682025.

¶15

3 MATHEW MANI

¶16

MATTAPALLI, VAZHAKKATTU, KARIMKUNNAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685586, PRESENTLY WORKING DUNAMIS TECHNOLOGIES INC, NEWYORK, USA.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY SMT.C.SEENA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

B.A.No.9033 of 2021

¶21

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------B.A.No. 9033 of 2021

¶23

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2021

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

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

¶26

The petitioner is the accused in crime No.2074 of 2021 of Palarivattom Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C.

¶27

The crime happened to be registered as the demand of the de facto complainant to return the money paid towards the cost of the face mask imported from China, which was later found to be less in quantity and different in quality, was declined by the petitioner. During the period from 08.04.2020 to 01.05.2020, the de facto complainant has paid Rs.88,74,723/- to the petitioner as price of the mask, which he had ordered. The order was given for the supply of 60,000 N-95 masks. It is alleged that only 40,000 masks alone were supplied and instead of N-95 standard, KN-95 marks were supplied. The petitioner despite repeated demands, did not

¶28

¶29

B.A.No.9033 of 2021

¶30

replace the mask or pay back the price amount that was paid by the de facto complainant. The petitioner with the intention of cheating and misappropriating the money received from the de facto complainant did so, and therefore, he has committed the offences as alleged.

¶31

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

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report of the investigating officer.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the entire transaction was between the de facto complainant and the agent of the company Sri.Jayan Gopi. It is submitted that the entire amount was transferred to the account of the company and the petitioner had only a limited role of mediating the business transaction. The learned counsel further would contend that when the business relationship was broken and dispute arose, several rounds of mediation were taken place, whereupon an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- had been paid back to the de facto

¶34

¶35

B.A.No.9033 of 2021

¶36

complainant by the petitioner, in three instalments. Relying on Annexures J, K and L statements of account, it is submitted that such an amount was paid, although he had no liability in the transaction.

¶37

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in the investigation so far done it is revealed that there was an attempt of defrauding the de facto complainant and materials regarding such fraudulent act are collected. The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that at this stage, the petitioner may not be released on bail.

¶38

From the materials available on record, it reveals that the transaction was essentially one of sale of goods. Of course, is there any criminal intention to cheat the de facto complainant by sending masks of different standards and less quantity is yet to be established on the basis of the evidence being collected. Considering the nature of the transaction, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner in the matter is not required. All the transactions are borne by documents. The petitioners are known to each other.

¶39

¶40

B.A.No.9033 of 2021

¶41

Therefore, there is no difficulty for the investigating agency to take forward the investigation even without detaining the petitioner during the period of investigation.

¶42

In such circumstances, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner 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:

¶43

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

¶44

(ii) He shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer, and in case he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect;

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

B.A.No.9033 of 2021

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶52

dkr

Anu P. Chandrasekharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anu P. Chandrasekharan 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

Satish Kumar S., Vs the Station House Officer

Mathew P.J Vs State of Kerala

Sudhi.K.v, Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs the State of Kerala

Mohanan @ Ganapathi Assari Vs State of Kerala

Abimon Vs State of Kerala