Allowed

Sneha Sanjeev v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2022Bail Appl./9024/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail to Sneha Sanjeev. The court noted that while the accused is charged with cheating under Section 420 IPC, she is a professional with no antecedents. Bail was granted subject to specific conditions for investigation and conduct.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed on conditions to surrender by 14.02.2022, execute a bond of Rs.50,000, and abide by specific conduct restrictions.

Sneha Sanjeev Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 20TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 9024 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.849/2021 OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARGODE

¶6

DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SNEHA SANJEEV AGED 24 YEARS D/O. SANJEEVAN, RESIDING AT UTHRAM HOUSE, KARUVANCHERY, NILESHWARAM.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶14

09.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A.No.9024 of 2021

¶16

¶17

SOPHY THOMAS, J.

¶18

------------------------------------------------

¶19

B.A.No.9024 of 2021

¶20

------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 09^th day of February, 2022

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is a petition for Anticipatory Bail filed under Section

¶23

438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 849/2021 of Chandera Police Station, Kasargode, registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC r/w Section 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.

¶25

The prosecution case is that in January 2021, the accused made the de facto complainant and her daughter to believe that, if they invest money in a company named “Q-net”, they will get more money as profit share and accordingly she received Rs.1,60,000/- from them and invested the same in that company. But so far, they did not receive any profit share from that company. Thus, she cheated them.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶27

B.A.No.9024 of 2021

¶28

¶29

According to the petitioner, the de facto complainant is her neighbour and relative. In fact, daughter of the de facto complainant Miss.Shonima and her associates introduced the online services and products provided by Q-net company to the petitioner. A false complaint has been preferred by the de facto complainant because of some monitory disputes pending between them. The petitioner is a practicing dentist and she has no criminal antecedents. She is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor admitted that daughter of the de facto complainant also has invested money in Q-net company, as induced by the petitioner. But, learned counsel for the petitioner produced Annexure-A3 document to show that Miss.Shonima is an independent representative of Q-net company. According to the petitioner, Miss.Shonima introduced to her the products and services of Q-net company, and she is not a promoter or staff of the company. There were some financial disputes between the de facto complainant and the petitioner, and only to pressurize her, a false complaint was

¶31

B.A.No.9024 of 2021

¶32

¶33

lodged against her. No documents are available to prove the relationship of the petitioner with Q-net company, other than availing its products and services as admitted by her. According to her, the de facto complainant also availed the products and services of Q-net company by paying some amount, and she never cheated them assuring share of profit in the company.

¶34

The petitioner is a Dentist, duly registered with Kerala Dental Council as seen from Annexure-A2. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has to be questioned in custody to collect the details from her mobile phone, e-mail etc to prove her relationship with Q-net company. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and also to obey any directions imposed by this court. She being a lady having no criminal antecedents and the dispute is with respect to financial dealings with an online company, this Court is inclined to allow her application on the following terms:

¶35

(i). The petitioner is directed to surrender before the

¶36

investigating officer on 14.02.2022 at 10:00 a.m. The

¶37

B.A.No.9024 of 2021

¶38

¶39

investigating officer can collect all relevant materials and evidence within her knowledge, which are necessary for the investigation.

¶40

(ii) In the event of arrest, she shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with

¶41

two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

¶42

(iii) Thereafter the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶43

(iv) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶44

(v) She shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶45

(vi) She shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶46

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the Jurisdictional Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail, in accordance with law.

¶47

Sd/-SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE

¶48

lsn

Sneha Sanjeev v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sneha Sanjeev 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

Joseph Kuruvilla Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh U.K, Vs State of Kerala

Praveen B. Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Sundareswaran.K Vs State of Kerala

Sivan Vs State of Kerala

Rohithkumar Rajesh Vs State of Kerala