Allowed

Raju E.Thomas, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Mar 2024Bail Appl./990/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a case of alleged trespass, theft and robbery arising from a landlord-tenant dispute sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court found the crime was an offshoot of a pending civil dispute and that possession findings made the allegations prima facie wrong, granting anticipatory bail on conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners on executing bond Rs.50,000/- each with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions of appearance, non-tampering and non-intimidation.

Raju E.Thomas, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 24TH PHALGUNA,

¶5

1945

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 990 OF 2024

¶7

CRIME NO.2714/2023 OF Ernakulam North Police Station,

¶8

Ernakulam

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS.2,4 & 6 TO 8:

¶10

1 RAJU E.THOMAS,

¶11

AGED 68 YEARS

¶12

S/O.VARGHESE THOMAS, EDACHIRA HOUSE, ERNAKULAM,

¶13

PIN - 682030

¶14

2 LISSIKUTTY T.C., AGED 69 YEARS W/O.M.V THOMAS, KARIKKAL HOUSE, KIDANGANNUR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689514

¶15

3 KORUTHU VARGHESE, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.VARGHESE, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, KIDANGANNUR P.O, PATHANMATHITTA, PIN - 689514

¶16

4 BEENA BINU, AGED 42 YEARS PANAVILA PUTEHNVEEDU, NEAR YMCA HALL, KODATHIPADI, NILAMBUR P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679329

¶17

5 MAHESH, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, KIDANGANNUR P.O., PATHAMTHITTA, PIN - 689514 BY ADV V.VINAY

¶18

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶19

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA (CRIME NO.2714/2023 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN
NORTH POLICE STATION), PIN - 682031
SR.PP-SRI.RENJIT GEORGE

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

BA NO.990/2024

..2..

SOPHY THOMAS, J

=========================

¶25

Bail.Appl.No.990 of 2024 ========================== Dated this the 14^th day of March, 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC filed by accused nos.2, 4 and 6 to 8 in Crime No.2714/2023 of Ernakulam North Police Station, registered under Sections 120B, 447, 457, 427, 380, 392, 395, 294(b), 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶28

The prosecution allegation is that, during the period 15.06.2023 – 03.07.2023, accused nos.1 to 8 criminally trespassed into the rental building owned by accused no.1, in which the defacto complainant was running an educational institution and committed theft of documents like cheque leaf, mark list of students, cash worth Rs.68,790/-, etc and it was kept in the building of 5^th accused, and in the house of the 6^th accused etc. On 11.05.2023, accused nos.2, 6 and 8 trespassed into that building and assaulted one lady named Anju, who was the Managing Director of that institution. All these acts were done by the accused with a view to evict the

¶29

..3..

¶30

BA NO.990/2024

¶31

defacto complainant and to get vacant possession of the building, which belonged to the 1^st accused.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶33

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

¶34

application.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, it is purely a civil dispute and O.S.No.644/2023 was filed by the 1^st accused against the defacto complainant seeking injunction. Annexure-II is the copy of the plaint in that suit, and Annexure-III is the copy of the injunction order dated 27.06.2023, by which the defacto complainant was injuncted from trespassing into the plaint scheduled building and from committing any waste therein. Only after that injunction order, defacto complainant lodged Annexure-I FIR on 01.11.2023, that too on the basis of a private complaint. Annexure-IV Commissioner Report was relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners, to say that the Commissioner also found that the 1^st accused was in possession of the plaint scheduled property as on the date of inspection. The defacto complainant, in order to circumvent the injunction order passed against him, filed

¶36

..4..

¶37

BA NO.990/2024

¶38

O.S.No.954/2023, suppressing all the facts, with a prayer to restrain the 1^st accused from letting out the scheduled building to third parties, and obtained an exparte injunction order deceitfully.

¶39

On going through the facts and circumstances narrated, it could be seen that the present crime is only an offshoot of the civil dispute pending between parties. Annexure-IV Commissioner Report shows that the 1^st accused was in possession of the scheduled building as on the date of inspection i.e. 27.06.2023. So on the date of incident alleged in this case, that is 03.07.2023, the defacto complainant was not in possession of that building. So much so the allegations are prima facie wrong. Moreover, the dispute is rather civil in nature.

¶40

In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow this bail application on the following terms:

¶41

i. In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) by each of them with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

¶42

ii. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating

¶43

BA NO.990/2024

¶44

..5..

¶45

Officer as and when directed.

¶46

iii. The petitioners shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses, or tamper with the evidence.

¶47

iv. The petitioners shall not commit any offence while

¶48

on bail.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE

ACR

BA NO.990/2024

..6..

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 990/2024

¶55

`PETITIONER ANNEXURES`
`Annexure-I`	`TRUE` `NO.271` `POLICE`	`COPY` `4/2023` `STATI`	`OF` `OF` `ON`	`THE FIR` `ERNAKULAM`	`IN` `TOWN`	`CRIME` `NORTH`
`Annexure-II`	`TRUE`	`COPY`	`OF`	`THE PLAI`	`NT`	`IN O.S`
	`NO.644` `AGAINS`	`/2023` `T THE`	`FILE` `COMPL`	`D BY THE` `AINANT`	`1ST`	`ACCUSED`
`Annexure-III`	`TRUE C`	`OPY O`	`F THE`	`INJUNCTION`	`ORDE`	`R DATED`
	`27.06.` `NO.644` `COURT,`	`2023` `/2023` `ERNAK`	`IN` `OF` `ULAM`	`I.A NO.2/2` `IST ADDITIO`	`023` `NAL`	`IN O.S` `MUNSIFF`
`Annexure-IV`	`TRUE C` `18.07.`	`OPY O` `2023 I`	`F THE` `N O.S`	`COMMISSION` `NO.644/2023`	`REPOR`	`T DATED`
`Annexure-V`	`TRUE` `13.07.` `HOUSE` `POLICE`	`COPY` `2023` `OFFI`	`OF` `SUBMI` `CER,`	`THE COMP` `TTED BEFORE` `ERNAKULAM`	`LAINT` `THE` `TOWN`	`DATED` `STATION` `NORTH`
`Annexure-VI`	`TRUE`	`COPY`	`OF`	`THE COMP`	`LAINT`	`DATED`
	`15.01.` `COMMIS` `E-MAIL`	`2024` `SIONER` `RECEI`	`SU` `OF P` `PT`	`BMITTED` `B` `OLICE, ERNAK`	`EFORE` `ULAM`	`THE` `AND THE`

Raju E.Thomas, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju E.Thomas, 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

Balakrishnan M., Vs State of Kerala

Justine Vs Renju Justine

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Shine.S., Vs State of Kerala

Reshma Vs State of Kerala

Kiran Mon Vs State of Kerala