Allowed

Lince Stephen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jan 2022Bail Appl./6657/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the first accused in a cheating case. The court observed that the alleged offense relates to 2010 while the FIR was filed in 2021, deeming custodial interrogation unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of bond with two sureties, appearance on summons, no contact with complainant, and no involvement in other crimes.

Lince Stephen 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 GOPINATH P. TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943

¶4

BAIL APPL. NO. 6657 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.201/2021 OF PAYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶6

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶7

LINCE STEPHEN, AGED 36 YEARS S/O STEPHEN, CHEMPAKATHINAL HOUSE, PERIKKALLOOR POST, PADICHIRA VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673592, KERALA.

¶8

BY ADVS. JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PAYANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670307, KERALA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2 JOY THOMAS, AGED 61 YEARS S/O THOMAS, NAMBISHERY HOUSE, THAYINERI, PAYYANNUR AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670307.KERALA.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. VIPIN NARAYAN (SR.PP)

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.6657/2021

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶19

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.201/2021 of Payannur Police Station, Kannur District alleging commission of offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioner is that he cheated the de facto complainant by promising him to arrange a job visa to the United Kingdom. The allegation pertains to the month of December, 2010.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was an employee of a Micro Finance Company and his job profile was to collect deposits on behalf of the said Company. It is submitted that the de facto complainant was one of the depositors in that Company, which subsequently went under. It is submitted that, on account of the fact that the petitioner was engaged in canvasing of deposits of the Company, the petitioner has been falsely implicated by stating that he had obtained money for arranging a job visa.

¶22

I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that though the allegations

¶24

relate the month of December 2010, a thorough investigation has to be carried out to determine whether the petitioner has actually cheated the de facto complainant. It is submitted that, according to the de facto complainant, he had refrained from making any complaint earlier as the petitioner had promised to return the money.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

¶26

B.A.No.6657/2021

¶27

¶28

particularly to the fact that the allegation relates the month of December, 2010 and considering the fact that the First Information Statement which led to registration of Crime No.201/2021 of Payannur Police Station, was given only in the year 2021, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail as I am convinced that his custodial interrogation is not required in the matter.

¶29

In the result, this application for anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 201/2021 of Payannur Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

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

¶31

(ii) Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No. 201/2021 of Payannur Police Station as and when summoned to do so;

¶32

(iii) 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. 201/2021 of Payannur Police Station;

¶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. 201/2021 of Payannur Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶37

acd

Lince Stephen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lince Stephen 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

Badarul Muneer Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Bijali Vs State of Kerala

Surendran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Rajeena.K Vs State of Kerala

Sabareesan @ Sabari Vs State of Kerala