Dismissed

Rajesh K B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Mar 2023Bail Appl./121/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed applications for anticipatory bail filed by Rajesh K.B., accused of pledging spurious gold under Section 420 IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was essential to establish the source of the gold and the petitioner's involvement, noting the accused had absconded in one case. Allowance was made for voluntary surrender.

What did the court decide?

The bail petitions were dismissed; the petitioner is permitted to surrender voluntarily.

Rajesh K B Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.569/2022 OF VARANTHARAPPILLY POLICE STATION, THRISSUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶7

RAJESH K B AGED 43 YEARS S/O.BALAN, KORAPPATH HOUSE, VASUPURAM DESOM, MATTATHOORKUNNU P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680684 BY ADVS. A.C.DEVY A.M.ABDULLA K.R.RAMISH

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..157/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

¶12

BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2023

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶14

PRESENT

¶15

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN MONDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944 BAIL APPL. NO. 157 OF 2023

¶16

CRIME NO.574/2022 OF VARANTHARAPPILLYL POLICE STATION,

¶17

THRISSUR

¶18

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶19

RAJESH K B AGED 43 YEARS S/O. BALAN, KORAPPATH HOUSE, VASUPURAM DESOM, MATTATHOORKUNNU P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680684 BY ADVS. A.C.DEVY A.M.ABDULLA K.R.RAMISH

¶20

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶21

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SMT.T V NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2023, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..121/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2023

¶25

COMMON ORDER

¶26

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2023

¶27

[Bail Appl. Nos.121/2023 and 157/2023]

¶28

In bail application No.121/2023, Rajesh K.B., who got

¶29

arrayed as 2^nd accused in crime No.569/2022 of Varantharappally police station seeks anticipatory bail. The same petitioner canvasses anticipatory bail in crime No.574/2022 of Varantharappally police station, where he got arrayed as 2^nd accused.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

I have perused the relevant documents forming part of the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The precise allegation of the prosecution in crime No.569/2022 is that the first accused in this crime pledged 163.500 gm of spurious gold at 'Anugraha Finance' Nandipulam, where the defacto complainant has been working

¶33

¶34

BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2023

¶35

as the Managing Partner. The specific allegation is that by pledging spurious gold, the first accused availed gold loan to the tune of Rs.6,12,000/- (Rupees six lakh twelve thousand only) on various occasions. The further case of the prosecution is that when the first accused was arrested and questioned, he disclosed that the above spurious gold was handed over by the second accused, for the purpose of pledging and both the accused together pledged spurious gold in other financial institutions and obtained money. On the basis of this statement, when the call details were examined, it was found that there were constant calls and financial transactions between the first and the second accused and therefore, the prosecution would allege that the second accused is the person, who handed over the spurious gold to the first accused, for the purpose of pledging. It is on this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶36

¶37

BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2023

¶38

Coming to crime No.574/2022, therein also, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the said case, the allegation is that the first accused, who is the first accused in crime No.569/2022, pledged 57.00 gm of spurious gold and obtained Rs.2 lakh from the Inchakkundu Service Cooperative Bank, Mupliyam. In this crime, the first accused given similar statement in the other crime to show that the second accused is the person, who handed over the spurious gold to the first accused. In this crime also, constant calls and financial dealings with the petitioner and the first accused were detected by the Investigating Officer.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and there is nothing in this case to connect the petitioner in these crimes. According to him, if at all, spurious gold was pledged, the primary responsibility of the same is that of the appraiser to find it. In this matter, the appraiser not even made as an accused. He also submitted

¶40

¶41

BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2023

¶42

that there are financial transactions between the first and the second accused for other purposes and the same cannot be held as one, for the purpose of any other dealings and the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter of pledging of spurious gold.

¶43

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail. It is submitted that after recording the statement of the first accused, when investigation was proceeded to locate the second accused, he was absconded. When the call details in between the first and the second accused were verified, his involvement in this crime is made out, prima facie and therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioner are absolutely necessary to find out the source of spurious gold and other details. In such a case, grant of anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation and the same would be fatal to the prosecution.

¶44

On perusal of the prosecution records in crime No.569/2022, the specific allegation is that 163.500 gm of

¶45

BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2023 7

¶46

spurious gold was handed over by the second accused/petitioner herein to the first accused and the first accused, in turn, pledged the same to 'Anugraha Finance', Nandipulam and obtained loan to the tune of Rs.6,12,000/(Rupees six lakh twelve thousand only). Similarly, the first accused pledged 57.00 gm of spurious gold entrusted by the second accused/petitioner herein and availed gold loan to the tune of Rs.2 lakh from the Inchakkundu Service Co-operative Bank, Mupliyam. The prosecution case is that the above spurious gold was supplied by the petitioner herein and the call details in between the first and the second accused, including the financial transactions, would establish the same, prima facie . Since the prosecution has specific allegation that the second accused is the person, who handed over 220.500 gm (163.500 gm + 57.00 gm) of gold, for the purpose of pledge, his arrest, custodial interrogation and source of the spurious gold are essential part of the investigation. Therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary in this case, as rightly

¶47

¶48

BAIL APPL. NO. 121 OF 2023

¶49

pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶50

Accordingly, these petitions stand dismissed.

¶51

Since it is submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶52

petitioner that, the petitioner is ready to surrender before the Investigating Officer, the petitioner can do the same since the same is a voluntary action at his volition.

¶53

Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

nkr

Rajesh K B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh K B 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

Subin Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Tijo John Vs State of Kerala

Dany Joshy Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh K B Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Faisal Vs State of Kerala

Farook M Vs State of Kerala