Allowed

Sulatha S, v. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC20 Oct 2023Bail Appl./2876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the Court allowed bail to accused persons facing charges of cheating and forgery. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary, noting potential civil disputes amidst complex transactions involving loans and property.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners released on bail subject to execution of bonds, personal appearance on specified dates, and conditions prohibiting contact with complainant or witness interferen

Sulatha S, Vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public… — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 28TH ASWINA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 2876 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.81/2023 OF KANAKAKUNNU POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶7

1SULATHA S,
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O REGHU, VETTUVALAKKAKATHU THARAYIL, KANDALLOOR SOUTH
PO, KANDALLOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690527
2REGHU,
AGED 58 YEARS
VETTUVALAKKAKATHU THARAYIL, KANDALLOOR SOUTH PO,
KANDALLOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690527
BY ADV M.R.SASITH

¶8

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶10

2OMANAKUTTY
AGED 83 YEARS
W/O SANKARA PANICKER, KULIRMA, KANDALLOOR SOUTH,
KANDALLOOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN CODE: - 690531 IS IMPLEADED
AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 2 AS PER ORDER DATED 14-06-23
IN CRL MA 1/23 IN BA 2876/23
BY ADVS.
OMAR SALIM
NEETHU S.

¶11

SRI NOUSHAD K.A. (SR PP)

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

BAIL APPL. NO. 2876 OF 2023 2

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶16

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.81/2023 of Kanakakunnu police station, Alappuzha district, alleging commission of offences under Sections 403, 406, 418, 420, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 469 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

Allegation against the petitioners is that, they had borrowed a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the de facto complainant, in the year 2014 and since they could not repay the amount to the de facto complainant, they had conveyed a property having an extent of 1.21 Ares to the de facto complainant by a registered document executed in the year 2016. It is alleged that, thereafter, the petitioners convinced the de facto complainant that they would settled her entire liability and compelled her to stand as a surety for a loan taken by them from a bank. It is alleged that they also compelled the de facto complainant to mortgage the property which was conveyed to the de facto complainant in the year 2016, as security for the repayment of the loan availed from the bank. It is alleged that the present liability to the bank is nearly Rs.18 lakhs and apart from the

¶18

BAIL APPL. NO. 2876 OF 2023 3

¶19

sum of Rs.3 lakhs paid to the de facto complainant, no other amount has been paid to the de facto complainant.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the transactions between the petitioner and the de facto complainant cannot attract any criminal offence as the issues between them are civil in nature and no criminal offence is attracted. It is submitted that the petitioners had earlier conveyed the property to the de facto complainant in full and final settlement of the liability towards the amount borrowed from the de facto complainant and thereafter, since the de facto complainant was insisting that the property is not worth much, the petitioners had arranged to take a loan from the bank in order to repay the money borrowed from the de facto complainant. It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary as the allegations of the de facto complainant are allegations which can be proved by documents and there is no question of the petitioners interfering with the investigation in any manner. It is also submitted that the petitioners will co-operate with the investigation and therefore, the petitioners may be granted

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 2876 OF 2023 4

¶22

anticipatory bail subject to conditions.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant would vehemently oppose the grant of bail. It is submitted that, according to the de facto complainant, she is aged 83 years and she was compelled to go to the bank and execute documents as a surety to the loan availed by the petitioners and also to mortgage the property which was conveyed to her by the petitioners, in the yer 2016. It is submitted that, without repaying the entire amount due to the de facto complainant, the petitioners managed to siphon away a substantial part of the loan availed from the bank on the strength of the surety-ship agreement executed by the de facto complainant. It is submitted that the property of the de facto complainant is also mortgaged for the purpose of securing repayment of the loan.

¶24

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to strict conditions. There are several transactions between the petitioners and the de facto complainant starting from the year 2014. Certain

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 2876 OF 2023 5

¶26

property transactions have also taken place between them. Therefore, I cannot completely rule out the possibility that the disputes are those of a civil nature. However, whether any criminal offence is involved, is a matter for investigation. The custody of the petitioners does not appear to be necessary for a proper investigation into the crime.

¶27

In the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on bail, in the event of arrest in crime No.81/2023 of Kanakakunnu police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶28

(i) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer;

¶29

(ii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.81/2023 of Kanakakunnu Police station at 11.00 A.M on 30.10.2023 and 31.10.2023 and thereafter, whenever summoned to do so;

¶30

(iii) The petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to

¶31

BAIL APPL. NO. 2876 OF 2023 6

¶32

influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.81/2023 of Kanakakunnu police station;

¶33

(iv) The petitioners 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.81/2023 of Kanakakunnu police station may file an application before the jurisdictional court, for cancellation of bail.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

GOPINATH P.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

ajt

Sulatha S, v. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulatha S, v. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

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

Jaleel Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Devanand Vs State of Kerala

Syam Lal Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar @ Biju Vs State of Kerala

Tomy K.M. Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ahraf Vs State of Kerala