Allowed

Kamal Raj Manickath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2022Bail Appl./356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought anticipatory bail for two accused alleging offences under sections 120 B, 406, 409 and 420 of the IPC regarding a cheating case. The High Court granted pre-arrest bail on stringent conditions, directing surrender for interrogation, passport submission, and non-interference with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail subject to stringent conditions including surrender for interrogation, execution of bonds, periodic appearance before the investigating officer, and surren

Kamal Raj Manickath Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 356 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1468/2021 OF Ernakulam South Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDERCRMC 2790/2021 OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT,

¶7

ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶9

1 KAMAL RAJ MANICKATH AGED 39 YEARS S/O M P VARGHESE, MANICKATH HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P O, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM-683572.

¶10

2 LEKSHMI MENON AGED 37 YEARS W/O KAMAL RAJ MANICKATH, DIRECTOR, SALKS DESIGNS PRIVATE LIMITED, 56/3441, GCDA SHOPPING COMPLEX, PANMAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM-682036.

¶11

BY ADVS. THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE ABISHEK JOHNY

¶12

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

2 SREEJITH CHAWDRA MOHAN NAIR S/O R.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR, 5 E, PENTA QUEEN APARTMENTS, PADIVATTOM, KOCHI-682024 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13/01/2022.

¶15

BY ADVS. Harikumar C T.B.PRASANNAN(K/367/2006) SANDRA SUNNY(K/926/2020) ARUN KUMAR M.A(K/1197/2021) R1 BY SR.PP SMT.SEETHA S.

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

19.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No.356 of 2022

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

B.A.No. 356 of 2022

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2022

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶25

Petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 in Crime No.1468 of 2021 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station, Ernakulam District registered alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 120 B, 406,409 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant is a finance professional and the 1^st accused is a fashion designer and an entrepreneur. 1^st accused also claims to be the founder and the designated partner of a firm by name "Soucika Couture LLP” at Bangalore. 2^nd accused is the wife of the 1^st accused. Accused Nos.1 & 2 conspired together and thereafter fraudulently and dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to believe that if he took franchise of textile showroom of the business concern run by the accused, he would be able to derive high returns of profits. Upon the abovesaid promise, the 1^st accused had assured the defacto complainant that he could make investment in a new company in Kochi under the management and administration of the defacto complainant for taking over the present

¶27

BA No.356 of 2022

¶28

¶29

activities run by the accused at Bangalore. With the abovesaid false assurance, the 1^st accused collected a total amount of about Rs. 35 lakhs from the defacto complainant during the period from April 2016 to October 2019. But the accused cheated the defacto complainant by refusing to act as agreed earlier and thus misappropriated the huge amounts collected from the defacto complainant. Thus the accused have committed the offences as alleged.

¶30

Petitioners submit that they have been falsely implicated in the abovesaid crime. In fact the 1^st petitioner and defacto complainant are friends and the petitioners were running a boutique by name "Soucika Couture LLP”. While so the defacto complainant approached the 1^st petitioner in the year 2016 intimating that he is interested to take a franchise of the boutique run by the 1^st petitioner. Later the defacto complainant has taken the franchise. The case of the petitioners is that the defacto complainant on his own will invested in the petitioners' firm. The specific case of the petitioners is that later on at the instigation of the defacto complainant, the 2^nd petitioner along with the wife of the defacto complainant and other common friend (3^rd accused in the above crime) incorporated a new company by name “Salks Designs Pvt.Ltd.”. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic the business went into huge loss and thereupon the defacto complainant demanded for return of the amount and thus the present complaint was filed.

¶31

The defafcto complainant entered through counsel and

¶32

BA No.356 of 2022

¶33

¶34

seriously opposed the application for bail mainly contending that he has been defrauded to the tune of Rs.60 lakhs.

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor also upon instructions submitted that the defacto complainant has been defrauded by the petitioners.

¶36

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, I feel that the petitioners can be granted prearrest bail but on stringent conditions.

¶37

Therefore, the bail application is disposed of with the following directions. The petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 31.08.2022 and make themselves available for interrogation on that day or on any other day or days as directed by the investigating officer. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with Crime No.1468 of 2022 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the very same day and shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

¶38

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

¶39

(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays at 11.00 a.m. till the filing of final report.

¶40

(iii) The petitioners shall surrender their passport before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioners do not have a passport,

¶41

BA No.356 of 2022

¶42

¶43

they shall execute an affidavit to that effect and file the same

¶44

before the said court within seven days of release on bail

¶45

(iv) They shall not tamper with any evidence;

¶46

(v) They shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶47

(vi) They shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶48

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the

¶49

Investigating Officer in the abovesaid crime may file an application before jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.

¶50

It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by the petitioners even when the petitioners are on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and

¶51

others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663) .

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM

JUDGE

cks

Kamal Raj Manickath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamal Raj Manickath 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satheesh Kumar M.S Vs State of Kerala

Noushad P S Vs State of Kerala

Roshan Jacob Oommen Vs State of Kerala

Anuraj Vs State of Kerala

Jomon T Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Biju Kumar Vs State of Kerala