Allowed

Nauharsha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2022Bail Appl./1457/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that the allegations stemmed from a civil contract dispute regarding construction work, involved doubts about genuineness, and the petitioner had no tendency to flee, thus warranting bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like sum, subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation.

Nauharsha 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 K. BABU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 1457 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.718 OF 2021 OF PERUVANTHANAM POLICE STATION,
IDUKKI DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

NAUHARSHA

¶9

AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KOYA,
KOYAMANZIL, ERAYANKUDY (P.O),
MAMBRA, ANGAMALY, PIN-680072.

¶10

BY ADVS.
DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
VINOD S. PILLAI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERUVANTHANAM POLICE
STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-
682031.

¶13

2BINU.C.C.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN,
CHAKKUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KUTTIPLANGAD (P.O),
RATHNAGIRI KARA, KOKKAYAR,
KUTTIPLANGAD.P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN-685603.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.M.C. ASHI -P P

¶16

..2..

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 1457 OF 2022

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶19

..3..

¶20

BAIL APPL. NO. 1457 OF 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶23

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.718/2021 of Peruvanthanam Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶24

The gist of the prosecution case is as follows:-

¶25

The petitioner and the de facto complainant entered into an agreement for construction of a residential building on 21.10.2020. The petitioner had agreed to complete the construction of the building at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per sq. ft.. Even after the receipt of 80% of the construction costs, the petitioner failed to complete the work as agreed.

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that he has done the

¶27

..4..

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 1457 OF 2022

¶29

construction of the building till the stage of plastering. The petitioner completed the plastering works in April, 2021 itself. As per the terms of construction, the de facto complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.2,98,724/- towards the plastering works. This was not paid by the de facto complainant and therefore the petitioner was compelled to close the construction site.

¶30

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

¶31

It appears that the transaction involved is of civil nature. Having gone through the entire materials, I am of the view that there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. There is no possibility of the petitioner to flee from justice. Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner could establish a prima facie case for getting the benefits contemplated in Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶32

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed as

¶33

..5..

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 1457 OF 2022

¶35

follows :-

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 29.07.2022, for interrogation.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating agency.

¶38

(iii) The Station House Officer, Peruvanthanam

¶39

Police Station is directed to release the petitioner, on bail, in the event, he is arrested, on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶40

(iv) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses in this case or tamper with the evidence.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K. BABU, JUDGE

¶43

kkj

Nauharsha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nauharsha 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

Surendran Vs State of Kerala

R.Babu Vs Excise Inspector

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Karthika Vs State of Kerala

Varkey@Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Vs State of Kerala