Dismissed

Prageeth. R. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Mar 2023Bail Appl./7964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed two bail applications filed by accused involved in a 'visa fraud' cheating case. The accused, operating an educational consultancy, allegedly collected funds under false pretenses for student visas. The Court noted no settlement was reached despite pendency and the prosecution case was prima facie established.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications dismissed; accused to remain in custody pending further proceedings.

Prageeth. R. 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

THURSDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7931 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.495/2022 OF KANJAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:

¶8

1 PRAGEETH. R. AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. RAVEENDRAN, DHANYA, THATTARAMBALAM, PELA. P.O., MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690103 2 HIROSH AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. SYRUS, MANIYAPOZHIYIL, ANDHAKARANAZHY. P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 686607 BY ADVS. C.P.UDAYABHANU NAVANEETH.N.NATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KANJAAR POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, PIN - 685590 BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SR PP – P G MANU

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.03.2023 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.7964 OF 2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

B.A.Nos. 7931 & 7964 of 2022

¶13

¶14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶15

PRESENT

¶16

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 7964 OF 2022

¶17

CRIME NO.1087/2022 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI

¶18

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:

¶19

¶20

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶21

¶22

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.03.2023 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.7931 OF 2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

B.A.Nos. 7931 & 7964 of 2022

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2023

¶27

Bail application No.7931 of 2022 has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking pre-arrest bail and the petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in crime No.495/2022 of Kanjar Police Station, Idukki.

¶28

The same accused in crime No.1087/2022 of Thodupuzha Police Station, Idukki, seeks pre-arrest bail in B.A.No.7964/2022.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the relevant materials form part of the case diary, placed by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

In crime No.1078/2022, the prosecution allegation is that, accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were running 'Edberys Overseas Educational Consultancy' near Kaloor Metro Station, collected Rs.2,39,000/- in between 24.08.2021 to 28.02.2022, from the defacto complainant on undertaking to arrange Student Visa to the son of the defacto complainant in USA. However, they miserably failed to arrange the visa as agreed or to return the money. The

¶31

B.A.Nos. 7931 & 7964 of 2022

¶32

¶33

specific allegation is that, the money was transferred in the account of the 1^st accused from the account of the defacto complainant. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶34

In crime No. 495/2022, the prosecution allegation is that, by offering Visa as dealt in crime No.1087/2022, the accused herein obtained Rs.2,26,000/- in between 04.09.2021 to 28.02.2022 from the defacto complainant herein on undertaking to provide Student Visa in USA to one Anandu Hari, who is the brother of the defacto complainant. In this crime also, the accused herein miserably failed to provide visa as agreed and even failed to return the money. Accordingly, crime alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 of IPC was registered.

¶35

It is seen that, these bail applications have been filed as early on 06.10.2022, in a case where the allegation was raised during the period between 24.08.2021 to 28.02.2022.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners last time submitted that, the petitioners are ready to effect the payment and therefore they may be granted anticipatory bail. Acting on the said submission these matters stand posted to this day, to ascertain the settlement, if any. Today, it is submitted by the

¶37

B.A.Nos. 7931 & 7964 of 2022

¶38

¶39

learned counsel for the petitioners that, Rs.70,000/- was paid in crime No.1087/2022. But no documents produced to substantiate the said submission and also the counsel miserably failed to produce any document issued by the defacto complainant to acknowledge the said payment. In fact, payment as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not at all established. Even otherwise, the amount involved in this crime is Rs.2,39,000/and not Rs.70,000/-.

¶40

Though, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent, the allegations are false and therefore, the petitioners are liable to be released on anticipatory bail by imposing conditions, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that the allegations are very serious. The defacto complainants in the respective crimes were cheated after receiving the amount through the Bank accounts of the petitioners with undertaking to arrange student visa and the amount so given were misappropriated by the accused.

¶41

On perusal of the available materials, it is discernible that, though these transactions started in the year 2021 and ended during the middle of 2022, even after pendency of these bail applications before this Court for the last more than 5 months,

¶42

B.A.Nos. 7931 & 7964 of 2022

¶43

¶44

no attempt was made by the petitioners to at least to repay the amount to the respective defacto complainants, in any manner. It is noticed that the investigation in these crimes has been stalled because of pendency of these petitions. In these matters, the prosecution case is well made out, prima facie . In such a case, arrest, custodial interrogation of the petitioners and recovery of the money are necessary to accomplish meaningful investigation and eventful prosecution. Therefore, anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioners found to be meritless.

¶45

Accordingly, these bail applications stand dismissed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶48

Prageeth. R. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prageeth. R. 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

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Manu.K.Jayan Vs State of Kerala

Saniyo Vs State of Kerala

K.Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Sreekuttan @ Ananthu Vs State of Kerala