Dismissed

K.Sukumaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Mar 2023Bail Appl./8841/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order dismissed anticipatory bail petitions filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.214/2022 of Padinjarethara Police Station. The court held that the prosecution case of cheating and criminal conspiracy involving a large sum for a fake job offer was well made out, justifying arrest for investigation.

What did the court decide?

Both bail applications (No.5736/2022 and No.8841/2022) were rejected and dismissed.

K.Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶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. 5736 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.214/2022 OF PADINJARETHARA POLICE STATION, WAYANAD

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

NIDHEESH KUMAR AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) SOMASEKHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT CHITHIRA HOUSE, THOPPUMPADI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682005

¶9

BY ADVS. ANOOP.V.NAIR DEVI P. E.ADITHYAN A.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN ROHAN MAMMEN ROY

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PADINJARAETHARA POLICE STATION PADINJARAETHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673575

¶14

3 SUKUMARAN K AGED 60 YEARS RESIDING AT BINDHU BHAVAN, ELAVAPPALAM, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ,695562 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24/8/2022 IN CRL.M.A. 1/2022.

¶15

BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR A.MOHAMMED SAVAD

¶16

SRI.P G MANU,SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2023

¶18

ALONG WITH B.A.NO.8841/2022 AND THE COURT ON 30.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN THURSDAY, THE 30^TH DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 8841 OF 2022

¶24

CRIME NO.214/2022 OF PADINJARETHARA POLICE STATION,

¶25

WAYANAD

¶26

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3:

¶27

K.SUKUMARAN

¶28

AGED 60 YEARS BINDHU BHAVAN (BLOCK NO.47), EX SERVICE COLONY P.O, EX SERVICEMEN S COLONY PERINGAMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695562

¶29

BY ADV A.MOHAMMED SAVAD

¶30

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND IO:

¶31

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

¶32

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CRIME NO.214/2022), PADINJARETHARA POLICE STATION, PADINJARETHARA WAYANAD, PIN - 673575

¶33

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶34

SMT.T V NEEMA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶35

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2023 ALONG WITH BA NO.5736/2022 AND THE COURT ON 30.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022 3

¶37

COMMON ORDER

¶38

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2023

¶39

The third accused in crime No.214/2022 of

¶40

Padinjarethara police station, Wayanad seeks anticipatory bail in B.A.No.8841/2022. B.A.No.5736/2022 is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the second accused in the above crime.

¶41

Heard the respective learned counsel for the

¶42

petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶43

I have perused the relevant documents form part of

¶44

the case diary placed by the learned Public Prosecutor along with the documents placed by the respective counsel for the petitioners.

¶45

The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 4

¶46

herein obtained Rs.13,20,000/- from the defacto complainant

¶47

and his father, offering job to the defacto complainant in

¶48

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022 4

¶49

Germany. Accused Nos.1 and 2 in this crime are father and son. The specific allegation is that the second accused assured employment to the defacto complainant in Germany. The further allegation is that accused Nos.1 to 5 jointly received the amount and thereafter, the defacto complainant was taken to Russia. When the defacto complainant was asked to go to Russia, he insisted the presence of the second accused also along with him. Accordingly, the second accused also travelled along with the defacto complainant to Russia and thereafter, the second accused threatened the defacto complainant that the defacto complainant would be put to jail in Russia without doing anything to provide job in Germany as offered. At this juncture, the defacto complainant returned back from Russia since the accused herein failed to provide the job as offered. It is alleged further that the accused herein failed to repay the money or even part thereof. On this premise, the prosecution alleges commission of offences

¶50

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022 5

¶51

punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of IPC.

¶52

While pressing for anticipatory bail to the second accused, the learned counsel for the second accused would submit that the second accused has no role in this occurrence and the entire money was received by the other accused. He also submitted that the defacto complainant and two other persons had given huge amounts to ‘S & S Recruiting Agency’, which had office at Edappally. The said office was run by Sukumaran, Alex and Ullas. Sukumaran is the third accused and Ullas is the 5^th accused in this crime. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second accused that the second accused also given Rs.13 lakh to Sukumaran through his bank account and since Sukumaran agreed to provide employment to the second accused also in Germany. Highlighting absolute innocence in the above line, the learned counsel for the second accused pressed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶53

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022 6

¶54

Whereas the learned counsel for the third accused

¶55

would submit that as per the bank statements produced as Annexure A2 along with B.A.No.8841/2022, only Rs.20,000/was transferred to the account of the third accused. Opposing this contention, the learned counsel for the second accused would submit that bank statements of the first accused would go to show that the amount was remitted to an account in Mumbai and the same is the account of the third accused. He also submitted that as per an agreement (Annexure II) executed in between A1 and Sukumaran (A3), the entire money was given to Sukumaran and Sukumaran undertook the entire responsibility for the same. Whereas, the learned counsel for the third accused would submit that the third accused has no role in this occurrence and the allegations are false. He also denied the agreement relied on by the learned counsel for the second accused. Therefore, the third accused also pressed for the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶56

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022 7

¶57

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail on the submission that the allegations as against all the accused are well made out, prima facie. It is also submitted that money was transferred to the account of the first accused and all other accused benefited out of the same. It is submitted further that the second accused is the person, who assured employment to the defacto complainant in Germany, and introduced him to the other accused. Therefore, arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners are absolutely necessary to effectuate meaningful investigation involving Rs.13,20,000/-.

¶58

On perusal of the prosecution records, the allegation of the prosecution to the effect that the accused herein jointly collected Rs.13,20,000/- from the defacto complainant and his father with offer to provide employment in Germany to the defacto complainant is foreseeable, prima facie . It is relevant to note that Annexure II produced along

¶59

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022 8

¶60

with B.A.No.5736/2022 is an agreement alleged to be executed in between Somasekharan Nair (A4) and Sukumaran (A3). Somasekharan Nair is the first accused and the father of the second accused. Sukumaran is the third accused. On perusing the agreement, it has been stated that Rs.12,70,000/- was deposited in the account of the first accused at Union Bank, Thoppumpady Branch by Akhil Jose (the defacto complainant herein). Further, one Sabitha Soman deposited Rs.14,50,000/-. The agreement recites that the entire amount of Rs.12,70,000/- deposited by the defacto complainant herein was transferred to the account of the third accused.

¶61

The learned counsel for the third accused emphatically denied the execution of such an agreement. Therefore, the genuineness of the agreement is a matter of proof. However, the agreement would go to show that the first accused acknowledged the receipt of Rs.12,70,000/- from the

¶62

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022 9

¶63

defacto complainant and Rs.14,50,000/- from one Sabitha Soman with undertaking to provide employment to them in Germany. It is discernible from the records that the second accused also accompanied the defacto complainant to Russia with undertaking to take the defacto complainant to Germany and provide employment therein. But the specific allegation is that the second accused instead of providing the job, threatened the defacto complainant and send him back without providing the job. The prosecution allegation is that neither the job provided, as offered nor the money also was returned. Therefore, the prosecution allegation as to commission of offences punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of IPC is well made out. In fact, the prosecution records would justify involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 in this crime, involving Rs.13,20,000/- deposited by the defacto complainant for the purpose of getting employment in Germany. In such a case, arrest and custodial interrogation

¶64

BAIL APPL. Nos.5736 & 8841 OF 2022

¶65

¶66

are absolutely necessary. Therefore, grant of anticipatory bail would stall the investigation. Therefore, both these petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly, both petitions stand

¶67

dismissed.

¶68

Sd/A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶69

nkr

K.Sukumaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sukumaran 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

Pramod Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Manu.K.Jayan Vs State of Kerala

Saniyo Vs State of Kerala

Prageeth. R. Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Sreekuttan @ Ananthu Vs State of Kerala