Challenging anticipatory bail granted to a third accused implicated in a cheque-related criminal case, the High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition. It held non-cooperation does not entitle withdrawal of anticipatory bail unless violation warrants cancellation before the granting court.
Challenge to the anticipatory bail order is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.C.No.2203/22
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 23RD BHADRA, 1944
CRL.MC NO. 2203 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMC 281/2022 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - V, KOZHIKODE / IV ADDITIONAL MACT,
KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:
SAJITH GEORGE, S/O.GEORGE, AGED 50 YEARS, MADATHILKUNNEL HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686 613.
BY ADV P.C.HARIDAS
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3-S:
1 V.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O.BALA, AGED 58 YEARS, FLAT A, "G" FLOOR, PLOT NUMBERS 48, BHACKYA ABODE, RATNA NAGAR, VIRUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 092.
BY ADV.SHARAN SHAHIER
SMT.SEENA C-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C.No.2203/22
2
O R D E R
The petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.591 of 2019 of Kakkur Police Station, which was registered against three accused persons, including the 1st respondent/3rd accused herein for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The aforesaid crime was registered pertaining to a transaction relating to a Toyota Innova Crysta car belonging to the petitioner.
Crl.M.C.No.2203/22
3
petitioner was implicated on the reason that the aforesaid vehicle was purchased by the petitioner from accused Nos.1 and 2 and the same was being used by him for lending for film shooting. The 1st respondent submitted Crl.M.C.No.281 of 2022 before the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, seeking anticipatory bail and as per Annexure-E order the same was allowed subject to certain conditions. The petitioner/de facto complainant has approached this Court challenging Annexure-E order.
Crl.M.C.No.2203/22 4
the prosecution as well as the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand, submitted that, the 1st respondent is not complying with the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court in Annexure-E order. Reason highlighting by the learned Public Prosecutor is that even though notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C. was issued to the 1st respondent seeking production of the vehicle in question, so far he had not responded. Therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor supports the prayer sought for by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent opposes the said contention. According to him, the 1st respondent had purchased the said vehicle on the basis of the sale letter as well as the registration certificate handed over to him by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and it was a bona fide purchase. It is pointed out that, he was not aware of any malpractice alleged to have been committed by the 1st and 2nd accused with respect to the transaction which they had with the petitioner herein. Therefore, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that, no interference is warranted in AnneuxreE order.
5
Crl.M.C.No.2203/22
in B.A.No.2010 of 2021 in respect of an application submitted by the 2nd accused. He also places reliance upon the contentions of Annexure-B report submitted by the police before the Sessions Court, wherein, the allegations against the 1st respondent has been highlighted.
6
Crl.M.C.No.2203/22
2nd accused. Even going by the case set up by the petitioner in his complaint, transaction which he had with the 1st and 2nd accused, the role of the 1st respondent/3rd accused were pertaining to the transaction which allegedly occurred between 1st and 2nd accused. In the said transaction, the petitioner herein was not a party. When considering the case of the 1st respondent that he had purchased the aforesaid vehicle under the bona fide belief that the same was handed over to the 1st and 2nd accused as part of bona fide transaction with the original registered owner and according to him vehicle was handed over to him along with original registration certificate as well as sale letter. It is true that, the dispute is whether the transaction which the accused Nos.1 and 2 had with the petitioner herein was genuine. That is the matter to be investigated during the course of the trial. Considering the nature of the contention that has been put forward by the 1st respondent in his bail application, I am of the view that, probably such a case cannot be ruled out.
Crl.M.C.No.2203/22
7
the investigation and there is no response from his part to the notice issued to him under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for the production of the said vehicle. However, in my view, the said ground cannot be treated as a reason for setting aside the order of bail granted by the Sessions Court. The case that is being set up by the petitioner as well as prosecution is that of violation of condition of bail and in my view, in such an event, the proper remedy of the prosecution is to approach the court concerned seeking cancellation of bail. In other wards, the violation of the conditions, cannot be a reason to set aside the order of bail as such.
In such circumstances, after perusing the entire records, I cannot find any impropriety in the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge while passing Annexure-E order. Therefore, the challenge raised against the said order through this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. and the confirmation of Annexure-D order will not preclude the prosecution to approach the court concerned for cancellation of bail, if they are able to make out the case for the same.
Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE
DG/16.9.22
Crl.M.C.No.2203/22
8
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2203/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
| AnnexureA | ANNX.A- TRUE COPY OF BY THE PETITIONER. |
THE COMPLAINT FILED |
|---|---|---|
| AnnexureB | ANNX.B- TRUE COPY OF BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT 281/2022 ON THE FILES COURT, KOZHIKKODE. |
THE STATEMENT FILED IN CRL.M.C. NO. OF THE SESSIONS |
| AnnexureC | ANNX.C- TRUE COPY OF 16/03/2021 IN BA NO. HON'BLE COURT. |
THE ORDER DATED 2010/2021 OF THIS |
| AnnexureD | ANNX.D- TRUE COPY OF 03/03/3021 IN BA NO. HON'BLE COURT. |
THE ORDER DATED 2135/2021 OF THIS |
| AnnexureE | ANNX.E- TRUE COPY OF 07/03/2022 IN CRL.M.C 5TH ADDITIONAL SESSIO |
THE ORDER DATED . NO. 281/2022 OF THE NS JUDGE, KOZHIKKODE. |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Sessions Court erred in exercising its discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the respondent.
Whether non-cooperation with investigation under Section 91 Cr.P.C. justifies setting aside the anticipatory bail order.
SAJITH GEORGE
V.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
STATE OF KERALA
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
