Allowed

Bijali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jan 2022Bail Appl./5454/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by an accused in a case under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The court held the petitioner entitled to bail, granting release upon arrest subject to execution of bond, cooperation in investigation, non-interference with witnesses, and no engagement in other crimes.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted and petitioner released on bail subject to execution of bond and conditions of cooperation and non-interference.

Bijali Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 5454 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.109/2021 OF PEECHI POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

BIJALI, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ISMAYIL, NOOLVELIL HOUSE, P.O.CHUVANNAMANNU, PEECHI, THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. P.K.SAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶12

2 ADDL. R2 SHYNY JOHN, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O .JOHN, PULINJOTTIL HOUSE, CHUVANNU MANNU, VAZHAKKUMPARA, PEECHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652. IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R2 AS PER ORDER DATED 5/8/2021 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2021.

¶13

R1 BY SRI. T.R. RANJITH (SR.PP)

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 5454 OF 2021

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶19

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.109 of 2021 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally, the Manager of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (KSFE) was also arrayed as an accused. But, he has been subsequently deleted from the array of accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that for the period from 12.12.2017 to 09.03.2021, the petitioner, who was an agent of the KSFE, collected an amount of Rs.5,51,000/- from the de-facto complainant towards remittance against a chitty liability of the de-facto complainant and remitted only an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- at the KSFE branch in question.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the complaint was filed only for the purpose of unlawful gain and actually the de-facto complaint had remitted only an amount of Rs.2,75,000/to the KSFE. It is pointed out with reference to Annexure- A4 that despite two notices being issued to the de-facto complainant on 10.02.2019 and thereafter on 15.12.2020 demanding payment of the

¶21

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 5454 OF 2021

¶23

chitty installment, no reply was given by the de-facto complainant to the KSFE that the amount had been remitted through the petitioner. It is also pointed out that going by the contents of the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, both these notices were duly served on the de-facto complainant.

¶24

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submits that the matter is under investigation and that if this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, it may be on sufficient conditions to ensure that the investigation in the matter is not affected in any manner.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and also considering the contents of Annexure – A4 and taking note of the fact that despite receipt of two notices from the KSFE on 10.02.2019 and 15.12.2020, the subscriber/de-facto complainant did not make any complaint that the amounts demanded by the KSFE had been remitted through the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.

¶26

In the result, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, in the event of

¶27

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 5454 OF 2021

¶29

his arrest in connection with Crime No.109 of 2021 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur District, subject to the following conditions:

¶30

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

¶31

(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.109 of 2021 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur District, whenever called upon to do so;

¶32

(iii) Petitioner shall not interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate the de-facto complainant o r any witness in Crime No.109 of 2021 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur District;

¶33

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

¶34

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.109 of 2021 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur District, may file an application before the Jurisdictional Court, for cancellation of bail.

¶35

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶36

Bijali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijali 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Mani Vs the State of Kerala

Vineesh K.B Vs State of Kerala

Jyothish, Vs the State of Kerala

Badarul Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh Chandran Vs State of Kerala