Allowed

Sangeeth Kumar P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Mar 2022Bail Appl./1082/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted anticipatory bail to accused in a cheating case involving battery stock dispute. Court held dispute was civil/commercial in nature and released petitioners on bail subject to and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail in event of arrest in Crime No. 52/2021 subject to bonds, sureties, cooperation with investigation, and other specified conditions.

Sangeeth Kumar P Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1082 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.52/2021 OF PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

1 SANGEETH KUMAR P., AGED 42 YEARS SON OF M K PUSPANGADAN, EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD, 36-2443, NEAR AMRITANANDAMMAYI BRAHMASTHANAM, VADAKKEKUNNUPURAM, EDAPPLLY NORTH, KOCHIN, PIN - 682024

¶9

2 VINAYAN K., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O HARIDASAN T, M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD, 36/2443, NEAR AMRITANANDAMAYI BRAHMASTHANAM. VADAKKEKUNNUMPURAM. EDAPPLLY NORTH, KOCHI

¶10

3 KARNAN US, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O UNNIKRISHNAN, M/S EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD., 36/2443, NEAR AMRITANANDAMAYIBRAHMASTHANAM, VADAKKEKUNNUMPURAM, EDAPPLLY NORTH, KOCHI, PIN - 682024

¶11

BY ADVS. P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE SRI.SACHIN JACOB AMBAT SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.

BA No. 1082/2021

..2..

RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PARASSALA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695122 3 SAJI KRISHNAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O KRISHANANKUTTY, MD UNIVERSAL TYRES AND DISTRIBUTORS, KARTHIKA, OPPOSITE BURMA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, PARASSALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011 BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.V.JAYA RAGI SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.M.C. ASHI (PP)

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No. 1082/2021

..3..

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶23

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 52 of 2021 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvanathapuram District, which was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code .

¶24

The facts of the case is that the de facto complainant was a dealer of Exide batteries and the petitioners are the employees of M/s Exide Industries. It appears that due to the fault of the de facto complainant, certain batteries, of which the warranty period had expired, were lying in stock with the de facto complainant. The de facto complainant raised Annexure-4 invoice on another dealer of Exide batteries, viz., M/s Metro Power, Kottiyam (See Annexure-4). However, by Annexure-5, the said agency returned the batteries finding that the warranty period in respect of the batteries had expired and the batteries could not be sold to their customers. The stock of batteries was sent back through courier and the de facto

¶25

..4..

¶26

BA No. 1082/2021

¶27

complainant had not taken delivery of the same. The allegation appears to be that the petitioners have not taken back the batteries in question and thereby, they committed the offences alleged against them.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations are most fanciful and unbelievable. It is submitted that the petitioners had no occasion, whatsoever, to indicate that the batteries would be taken back by the company or by M/s Metro Power. It is further submitted that even assuming that the allegations are true, the dispute is purely of civil and commercial nature and criminal law cannot be set in motion.

¶29

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and prima facie, being convinced that the dispute is purely of civil and commercial nature, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions.

¶31

In the result, this application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 52 of 2021 of Parassala Police Station,

¶32

BA No. 1082/2021

¶33

..5..

¶34

Thiruvanathapuram District, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

(a) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶36

(b)Petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 52 of 2021 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvanathapuram District, at 10 am on 30.02.2022, and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

¶37

(c) Petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de facto complainant o r any witness in Crime No. 52 of 2021 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvanathapuram District;

¶38

(d)Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶39

If any of the aforesaid conditions is violated, the investigating officer in Crime No. 52 of 2021 of Parassala Police Station, Thiruvanathapuram District, may file an application before the

¶40

BA No. 1082/2021

¶41

..6..

¶42

jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

¶43

Any observation contained in this order is only for the purpose of considering the entitlement of the petitioners for bail and shall not be treated as findings of this Court on any point.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

bka/22.03.2022

Sangeeth Kumar P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeth Kumar P 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

Shahin T. Vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Ajmal (A-1) Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Das, Vs State of Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala

Shan Vs State of Kerala

Hamza Vs State of Kerala