Allowed

Padhmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2022Bail Appl./281/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by an accused in a cheating case alleging a dispute over a land sale and an alleged unauthorized taking of a car. The High Court examined the delay in filing the complaint and the civil nature of the dispute before granting bail.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is allowed. Petitioner is released on bail subject to executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, appearing before the investigating officer on 16.02.2022,

Padhmanabhan 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 281 OF 2022

¶5

CRIME NO.482/2021 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

PADHMANABHAN
AGED 57 YEARS
ILLIKAL VELI
VARANAM PO
CHERTHAKA
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688555
BY ADVS.
MANU HARSHAKUMAR
MARY ANN SAJI

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

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

¶10

ADV M.C.ASHI-PP

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

BAIL APPL. NO. 281 OF 2022 2

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶15

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.482/2021 of Muhamma police station, Alappuzha district, alleging commission of offences under Sections 406, 420 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and his mother own a plot of land, which was agreed to be sold to the de facto complainant. Certain amounts were received as advance. According to the petitioner, since the de facto complainant could not complete the transaction within time, the agreement was cancelled and the amount of advance was refunded. However, the de facto complainant started asking for interest on the amount of advance that had been paid. It is alleged that the de facto complainant took away a car belonging to the father-in-law of the brother of the petitioner, following which the father-in-law of petitioner's brother had filed a complaint and also filed a writ petition before this Court as W.P. (C ) No.21911/2018, which was disposed on 24.07.2018. It is submitted that the transaction between the petitioner and the de facto complainant relating to the land was admittedly in the

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 281 OF 2022 3

¶18

year 2015. It is submitted that when the de facto complainant, who was a friend of the brother of the petitioner was compelled to return the car which he had taken away forcefully, he got agitated and in the year 2021 he filed a complaint staing that he was cheated. It is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the dispute, if at all, with the de facto complainant is purely a civil dispute and no criminal case ought to have been registered. It is submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out the circumstances of the case from the records. It is pointed out that the de facto complainant has given a statement showing the manner in which he was cheated by the petitioner. It is submitted that the matter is under investigation and the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner may not be conducive to the successful completion of the investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner has to be interrogated.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and especially, noticing that the issue relates to the year 2015 in respect of which a complaint has been filed only in the year

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 281 OF 2022 4

¶22

2021 and considering all the circumstances noticed above, I am of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to strict conditions.

¶23

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in crime No.482/2021 of Muhamma police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) Petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶25

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.482/2021 of Muhamma Police station at 10.00 am on 16.02.2022 and thereafter, as and when called upon to do so;

¶26

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.482/2021 of Muhamma police station;

¶27

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶28

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.482/2021 of Muhamma police

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO. 281 OF 2022 5

¶30

station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶31

sd/-

¶32

GOPINATH P.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

ajt

Padhmanabhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padhmanabhan 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

Shamsudeen Vs State of Kerala

Gopalakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

Rinshad, Vs State of Kerala

Midhun K.M. Vs State of Kerala

Ajeshkumar N.S, Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Ambili Kumar Vs State of Kerala