Roy.V.Kuruvila vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 12, 2024

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1305740

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1305740
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias
Decided On: Feb 12, 2024
Case Number: Bail Appl./872/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Roy.V.Kuruvila

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....sections 406, 420, 468, 380 r/w. 34 of the indian penal code.3. the gist of the prosecution case is that: the firstaccused conspired with the accused 2 and 3 in furtherance of their common intention and dishonestly and fraudulently induced the defacto complainant to pay an amount of rs.10 lakh for the purpose of investment in a company named davani silks at moovattupuzha, promising him good dividends on the investment. however, the accused did not give the dividends or return the money. thus, the accused have committed the above offence.4. heard sri.rasheed c. nooranad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and smt. seetha s, the learned public prosecutor appearing for the respondents.5. the learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. in fact, the petitioner is also a victim in the above crime. in a series of cases, this court has granted the petitioner orders of pre-arrest bail. one such case is annexure 2 order, wherein the petitioner was granted an order of pre-arrest bail. the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a similar order in this case also. the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigating officer and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this court. hence, the petitioner may be granted an order of pre-arrest bail.6. the learned public prosecutor vehemently opposed the application. she made available the statement filed bythe investigating officer, wherein it is conceded that the petitioner had filed 15 bail applications before this court for orders of pre-arrest bail. the applications were allowed and the petitioner appeared before the investigating officer and his arrest was recorded and, thereafter, he was enlarged on bail. the prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be directed to cooperate with the investigating officer. hence, the bail application may be dismissed.7. on consideration of the facts, the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 23RD MAGHA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 872 OF 2024 CRIME NO.2035/2020 OF CRIME BRANCH, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: ROY.V.KURUVILA AGED 52 YEARS S/O V.J.KURUVILA, BUSINESS BY PROFESSION, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.D4 CHILAVANNUR,KADAVANTHARA.POST. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020 BY ADV RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH, COCHIN UNIT II ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682018 OTHER PRESENT: SR PP SMT SEETHA S THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2. The petitioner is the second accused in crime

No.2035/2020 of the Crime Branch, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (5 in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 380 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The gist of the prosecution case is that: the first

accused conspired with the accused 2 and 3 in furtherance of their common intention and dishonestly and fraudulently induced the defacto complainant to pay an amount of Rs.10 lakh for the purpose of investment in a company named Davani Silks at Moovattupuzha, promising him good dividends on the investment. However, the accused did not give the dividends or return the money. Thus, the accused have committed the above offence.

4. Heard Sri.Rasheed C. Nooranad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha S, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations levelled against him. In fact, the petitioner is also a victim in the above crime. In a series of cases, this Court has granted the petitioner orders of pre-arrest bail. One such case is Annexure 2 order, wherein the petitioner was granted an order of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of a similar order in this case also. The petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigating officer and abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petitioner may be granted an order of pre-arrest bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application. She made available the statement filed by

the Investigating Officer, wherein it is conceded that the petitioner had filed 15 bail applications before this Court for orders of pre-arrest bail. The applications were allowed and the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and his arrest was recorded and, thereafter, he was enlarged on bail. The Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner may be directed to cooperate with the Investigating Officer. Hence, the bail application may be dismissed.

7. On consideration of the facts, the materials placed

on record, the rival submissions made across the Bar, particularly after going through Annexure 2 order passed by this Court in B.A.No.7081/2020 in respect of a similar accusation, I am of the definite view that the petitioner's custodial interrogation is not necessary and the petitioner is entitled to an order similar to Annexure 2.

In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions: i) The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today. ii) In the event of the petitioner's arrest, the Investigating Officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional court on the date of surrender itself. iii) On such production, the jurisdictional court shall release the petitioner on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; iv) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and for the purpose of investigation as and when the Investigating Officer directs; v) The petitioner shall not intimidate witnesses or interfere with the investigation in any manner; vi) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence while on bail; vii) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. viii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall also be filed before the court below. Sd/- C.S.DIAS JUDGE shg

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Roy.V.Kuruvila vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Dias