Allowed

Vinil Chacko, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2023Bail Appl./3723/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by Vinil Chacko and Riya Sebastian accused of cheating under sections 420 and 34 IPC. The High Court directed that the petitioners be granted bail subject to specific conditions regarding bond execution, court appearance, and non-interference with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail subject to execution of bond with sureties, appearance before IO, cooperation with investigation, and no contact/influence on complainant or witnesses.

Vinil Chacko, 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 GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 23TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 3723 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-03-2023 IN CRMC 329/2023 OF DISTRICT
COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY

¶7

CRIME NO.130/2023 OF ULIKKAL POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:

¶9

1VINIL CHACKO
AGED 35 YEARS
THUNDATHIL HOUSE, KEEZHUR P.O, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN – 670 703.

¶10

2RIYA SEBASTIAN
AGED 28 YEARS, W/O VINIL CHACKO,
THUNDATHIL HOUSE, KEEZHUR P.O, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT,
PIN – 670 703.

¶11

BY ADVS.
 PRASANTH K.T.
 NIKHILA SOMAN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682 031.

¶14

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER INVESTIGATING OFFICER, ULIKKAL POLICE STATION, ULIKKAL P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN – 670 704.

¶15

BY ADVS.
 SMT. SREEJA V (PP)

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.3723/2023

ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶21

Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.130/2023 of Ulikkal Police Station, Kannur District, alleging commission of offences under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, who are husband and wife illegally obtained a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- from the defacto complainant though account transfer, promising to secure for the son of the defacto complainant a job visa for working in Singapore.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours. It is submitted that the defacto complainant had approached the petitioners seeking the help of the petitioners for securing a job for her son in Singapore and the petitioners had contacted an agency for the same. It is submitted that the petitioners had no direct

¶24

B.A.No.3723/2023

¶25

¶26

role in the matter and they had only helped the defacto complainant to secure a job for her son. It is submitted that the petitioners had no intention to cheat the defacto complainant in any manner.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor refers to the facts of the case and submits that going by the statement of the defacto complainant, the offences against the petitioners are clearly attracted. It is submitted that the money was transferred to the joint account of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners cannot deny the fact that a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- was paid by the defacto complainant to the petitioners. It is submitted that there is no other reason for which the defacto complainant would have transferred the money to the petitioners and therefore the case of the defacto complainant appears to be probable. However, it is confirmed that no criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioners.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of

¶29

B.A.No.3723/2023 4

¶30

the opinion that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. No criminal antecedents are reported against the petitioners. Further, according to the petitioners, they had only rendered assistance to help the defacto complainant, to securing a job for her son. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners does not appear necessary for the purposes of a proper investigation into Crime No.130/2023 of Ulikkal Police Station, Kannur District.

¶31

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.130/2023 of Ulikkal Police Station, Kannur District, subject to the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) Petitioners shall execute bond 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;

¶33

(ii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.130/2023 of Ulikkal Police Station, Kannur District, at 11.00 A.M. on 23-09-2023 and thereafter

¶34

B.A.No.3723/2023

¶35

¶36

whenever called upon to do so. The petitioners shall also cooperate with the investigation in every manner;

¶37

(iii) Petitioners shall not attempt to contact the de facto complainant or interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.130/2023 of Ulikkal Police Station, Kannur District;

¶38

(iv) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶39

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.130/2023 of Ulikkal Police Station, Kannur District may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶42

ats

Vinil Chacko, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinil Chacko, 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

Unni Mukundan Vs State of Kerala

1. Beena @ Litty Vs State of Kerala

Shahir C.K Vs State of Kerala

Sarath.S., Vs State of Kerala

K. Hemambika Vs P K Unni

Shivin Varghese Vs State of Kerala