Allowed

C.K. Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2022Bail Appl./6410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam allowed a bail application filed by two accused as Directors of a company charged with cheating and prosecution under IPC 406 and 420. The Court held the allegations were essentially civil in nature, focusing on breach of contract, and ordered their release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on executing bond for Rs.2,00,000/- each with two solvent sureties each and subjected to conditions precedent.

C.K. Anilkumar 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

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 6410 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1294/2022 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.1 &2:

¶7

1 C.K. ANILKUMAR AGED 54 YEARS, CHOZHIYANKUNNATH HOUSE, F3 MAYOOR VIHAR APARTMENTS, FIRST FLOOR, CHEROOR, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680008 2 C.K.SUNILKUMAR AGED 51 YEARS, CHOZHIYANKUNNATH HOUSE, F3 MAYOOR VIHAR APARTMENTS,FIRST FLOOR, CHEROOR, THRISSUR, KERALA, PIN - 680008 BY ADVS. MITHA SUDHINDRAN M.REVIKRISHNAN AJEESH K.SASI SRUTHY N. BHAT RAHUL SUNIL SRUTHY K.K NIKITA J. MENDEZ P.M.RAFIQ

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 GOVINDHAN RAHUL, S/O GOVINDHAN, BHAGEERATHY NAGAR, OLLUKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 2-11-2022 IN CRL.M.A 1-2022

¶10

BY ADV DILIP J. AKKARA - R2 SMT. NIMA JACOB (P.P)

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No.6410 of 2022

.. 2 ..

K.BABU, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶16

B.A. No.6410 of 2022

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2022

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1294/2022 of Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur District.

¶21

The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

The prosecution case is that in their capacity as Directors of Pooram Finserve Pvt. Ltd., the petitioners issued secured, redeemable, non-convertible debentures of the Company worth Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Only) at an interest rate of 12% per annum, but failed to repay the principal amount after expiry of the redemption dates and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

BA No.6410 of 2022

¶25

.. 3 ..

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations levelled by the prosecution are essentially of civil nature arising from a breach of contract.

¶27

The learned counsel for the defacto complainant opposed the bail plea of the petitioners contending that if the petitioners are granted pre-arrest bail, they will interfere with the investigation and threaten the witnesses in this case.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail plea of the petitioners.

¶29

Having gone through the materials placed before this Court, I am of the view that the averments based on which the crime has been registered are essentially of civil nature. The complaint relates to breach of contract allegedly committed by the Company of which the petitioners are Directors. The materials would not show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. There is no possibility of the petitioners

¶30

fleeing from justice. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents. I am of the view that the petitioners could establish a prima facie case for getting the benefits contemplated in Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶31

In the result, this Bail Application is allowed as follows :-

¶32

BA No.6410 of 2022

¶33

.. 4 ..

¶34

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 30.11.2022, for interrogation.

¶35

(ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating agency.

¶36

(iii) The Station House Officer, Payyannur Police Station is directed to release the petitioners on bail, in the event they are arrested, on their executing bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶37

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required.

¶38

(v) The petitioners shall not maintain contact with any persons acquainted with the facts of the case and shall not influence or threaten any witnesses in this case or tamper with the evidence.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

K.BABU JUDGE

¶41

ded/18.11.2022

C.K. Anilkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K. Anilkumar 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

Mathew T.S Vs State of Kerala

Sreehari Vs State of Kerala

T Uma IFS Vs State of Kerala

Ravindra Kanila Vs State of Kerala

Gopi. P.K Vs State of Kerala

Akhil Prasad, Vs State of Kerala