Allowed

Jiji Martin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2022Bail Appl./5032/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC for accused in cheque/breach of trust cases. The court held that while allegations were serious, custodial interrogation was not required.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to conditions including appearance for interrogation, execution of bond with sureties, and restrictions on tampering with evidence or leaving India.

Jiji Martin 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 BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 5032 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.169/2022 OF MARADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1JIJI MARTIN
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O MARTIN, RESIDING AT VETTACKAL HOUSE,
THAIKKODAM,VYTTILA P.O.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682019
2MARTIN
AGED 53 YEARS
SON OF XAVIER,
RESIDING AT VETTACKAL HOUSE,
THAIKKODAM, VYTTILA P.O.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 682019
BY ADVS.
T.MADHU
C.R.SARADAMANI
SHAHID AZEEZ
SAJITHA.S.DHARAN
RESHMA SANTHOSH
RENJISH S. MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MARADU POLICE STATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682304
3ADDL.R3
JAYANTHI C,
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O K. RAMAN MENON, AND W/O SYAM KUMAR,
RESIDING AT KAINATHU MADAM, CHUTTUPADU KARA,
EDAPPALLY P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682024

¶11

IS IMPLEDED AS PER ORDER DATED 18/07/2022 IN
CRL.M.A.NO.1/2022.
BY ADVS.
MOHAMMED SIYAD M F

¶12

SRI.NOUSHAD K.A
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATIO`N HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

B.A.No.5032 of 2022

¶15

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶17

==================== B.A.No.5032 of 2022

¶18

==================== Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶21

Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 & 2 in Crime No.169/2022 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409 and 420 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

According to the prosecution, the accused after fraudulently inducing the defacto complainant to enter into an agreement for sale of a property and after receiving a consideration of Rs.51 lakhs, they failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant. The accused had also failed to disclose the fact of an existing mortgage on the property and thereby committed the offences alleged.

¶23

Sri.T.Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that the allegations can at the most reveal a civil dispute. He further submitted that petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed upon them.

¶24

Sri.Mohammed Siyad.M.F, the learned counsel for the

¶25

B.A.No.5032 of 2022

¶26

¶27

defacto complainant, contended that the allegations are serious and that custodial interrogation would bring out the truth of the allegations.

¶28

Sri.Noushad.K.A, the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious requiring custodial interrogation.

¶29

On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case and on an appreciation of the arguments of either Counsel, though I am of the view that the allegations are serious in nature, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in the event of his arrest on conditions, since custodial interrogation is not required.

¶30

Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶31

a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 21.11.2022 and shall subject themselves to interrogation.

¶32

b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.

¶33

c) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.

¶34

d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or his family

B.A.No.5032 of 2022

members.

e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.

¶39

f) Petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

¶40

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.

¶41

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶42

jka/14.11.22

Jiji Martin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jiji Martin 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

T.K. Madhavan Vs State of Kerala

Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

George Joseph Thalackan Vs State of Kerala

Eldhose.v. Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Viji Kurup Vs State of Kerala