Daniel Mendes vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 10, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1752370

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/1752370
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon
Decided On: Jul 10, 2020
Case Number: Bail Appl./1665/2020

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Daniel Mendes

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....station, alappuzha, for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 408 of the ipc. the prosecution case in brief is thus:2. the petitioner was employed as a store managerdealing with the accounts in a shop belonging to the defacto complainant, named t.t.retail (navigator) at alappuzha. during the period, starting from january 2019, the petitioner using his position as the manager and the person-in-charge of the stock of the shop committed criminal breach of trust, as such employee of the shop and misappropriated a sum of rs.2,61,000/- from the shop and he also unlawfully sold shirts worth rs.4.64 lakhs, without issuing any bills or receipts and thereby, swindled an amount of rs.7,25,000/- from the shop.3. it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing forthe defacto complainant, that the petitioner offered to settle the matter and by that time, he absconded and he is no longer appearing and therefore, in case, he is granted an anticipatory bail, he may abscond and not be available for the trial. and therefore, she has very strong objections about granting bail to the petitioner. the learned public prosecutor also opposes the bail application on the very same ground. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documentspertaining to the transaction has been already seized and that the investigation has progressed well and he is willing to co-operate with the investigation, considering the present pandemic situation and also the full bench decision of this court, in w.p.(c) no.9400/2020(suo motu), he may be released on bail.4. after having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances in this case, i find that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. the entire act which he has done isconfined to this shop where he was employed. the amount involved is definitely large and he will have to co-operate with the investigation, for which conditions can be imposed, but not.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.1665 OF 2020 AGAINST CRIME NO.136/2020 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA PETITIONER/ACCUSED: DANIEL MENDES, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. GOSWAIN MENDEZ, KALLACHAM MURI, ARATTUVAZHY WARD, ALAPPUZHA P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. BY ADV. SRI.K.L.SHYAM RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682 031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 001. 3 ADDL.R3 JYOTHINATH, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O GOPINATHA PILLAI, JYOTHI NILAYAM HOUSE, OLATHALA OZHIVA MURIYIL, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, PATTANAKKADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688536. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 1/2020 R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.MAYA
OTHER PRESENT: SRI.AMJAD ALI - SR.PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Dated this the 10th day of July, 2020 APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.136 of 2020 of Alappuzha South Police Station, Alappuzha, for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 408 of the IPC. The prosecution case in brief is thus:

2. The petitioner was employed as a Store Manager

dealing with the accounts in a shop belonging to the defacto complainant, named T.T.Retail (Navigator) at Alappuzha. During the period, starting from January 2019, the petitioner using his position as the Manager and the person-in-charge of the stock of the shop committed criminal breach of trust, as such employee of the shop and misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,61,000/- from the shop and he also unlawfully sold shirts worth Rs.4.64 Lakhs, without issuing any bills or receipts and thereby, swindled an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- from the shop.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

the defacto complainant, that the petitioner offered to settle the matter and by that time, he absconded and he is no longer appearing and therefore, in case, he is granted an anticipatory bail, he may abscond and not be available for the trial. And therefore, she has very strong objections about granting bail to

 the petitioner.    The learned Public Prosecutor also opposes the
 bail application on the very same ground.            The learned counsel
 appearing    for   the   petitioner       submits   that   the    documents

pertaining to the transaction has been already seized and that the investigation has progressed well and he is willing to co-operate with the investigation, considering the present pandemic situation and also the Full Bench decision of this Court, in W.P.(C) No.9400/2020(suo motu), he may be released on bail.

4. After having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances in this case, I find that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. The entire act which he has done is

confined to this shop where he was employed. The amount involved is definitely large and he will have to co-operate with the investigation, for which conditions can be imposed, but not releasing him on bail and incarcerating him will not be serving any purpose, particularly in the present pandemic situation. The offence alleged against is punishable with imprisonment only upto 7 years and therefore, the Full Bench decision of this court, referred to above, squarely, applies in this case as well.

5. In the result, the petition is allowed and the petitioner

is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and after interrogation, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only), with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on further conditions:

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Mondays between 9.00am and 12.00pm for a period of three months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

(ii) He shall surrender his passport before the

Investigating Officer and the same shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, and in case, he does not have a passport, he shall file an affidavit to that effect.

(iii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

(iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period. In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail. The bail application is allowed. Sd/- ASHOK MENON JUDGE NR/10/7/20

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties Daniel Mendes vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Menon