Sujith @ Sujithkumar Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1156249
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJul-14-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
AppellantSujith @ Sujithkumar
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice thomas p.joseph monday,the14h day of july201423rd ashadha, 1936 bail appl..no. 5068 of 2014 --------------------------------------- crime no. 1084/2014 of north paravur police station , ernakulam district --------------- petitioners / accused no.2 & 3 : ----------------------------------------------------- 1. sujith @ sujithkumar, aged33years, s/o.subrahmanyan @ rajan, medakkal house, valluvally kara, kottuvally village, ernakulam district.2. vidhya, aged29years, w/o.sujith @ sujithkumar, medakkal house, valluvallikkara, kottuvalli village, ernakulam district. by advs.sri.s.rajeev sri.k.k.dheerendra krishnan respondents / state : -------------------------------------- 1. state of kerala, represented by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam - 682 031 (crime no. 1084/2014 of north paravur police station, ernakulam district).2. station house officer, north paravur police station, ernakulam district - 683 513 (crime no.1084/2014 of north paravur police station, ernakulam district). by public prosecutor sri.v.s.sreejith this bail application having come up for admission on1407-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: msd. thomas p.joseph, j ====================== b.a no.5068 of 2014 ====================== dated this the 14th day of july, 2014 order petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in crime no.1084 of 2014 of the north paravur police station for the offences punishable under secs. 120(b), 403, 406, 420, 468 and 471 r/w sec.34 of indian penal code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.2. learned public prosecutor has opposed the application. it is submitted that the petitioners are husband and wife. first petitioner is son of the first accused. first accused obtained `2,29,000/- and later, `20,00,000/- on a promise to make the de facto complainant partner in the business of the first accused. that was not done. first accused returned `16,00,000/-. the balance amount of `6,29,000/- is due which was misappropriated. b.a no.5068 of 2014 2 in the meantime, to cheat the de facto complainant, the first accused has transferred shares in the company/interest in the partnership firm in favour of the petitioners.3. the petitioners have no involvement in the alleged cheating of the de facto complainant by the first accused. there appears to be some difference of opinion between the petitioners and the first accused.4. having regard to the relevant circumstances, i am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. hence, i am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions and protecting interest of the de facto complainant. the application is allowed of as under: i) petitioners shall surrender before the officer inverstigating crime no.1084/2014 of north paravur police station on 21.07.2014 at 10 a.m and on other day/days as directed by the investigating officer for interrogation. b.a no.5068 of 2014 3 ii) petitioners shall co-operate with investigation of the case. iii) in case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. iv) on such production the petitioners shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for `25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: a) one of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioners. b) petitioners shall file affidavit before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond undertaking that the shares/interest as the case may be, they have in the company/partnership firm shall not be transferred to anybody or encumbered until the case is disposed of or otherwise ordered by the learned magistrate. b.a no.5068 of 2014 4 c) petitioners shall file attested copy of the aforesaid affidavit, in case it is a company before the registrar of companies and in case it is a partnership firm, before the registrar of firms and the registrar/sub registrar concerned within three weeks from the date of execution of the bail bond. d) petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation as and when required. e) petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. f) in case the petitioners violates any of conditon nos. (c) to (e), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in p.k shaji vs state of kerala (air2006sc100 sd/- thomas p.joseph, judge vdv //true copy// p.ato judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY,THE14H DAY OF JULY201423RD ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 5068 of 2014 --------------------------------------- CRIME NO. 1084/2014 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT --------------- PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.2 & 3 : ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SUJITH @ SUJITHKUMAR, AGED33YEARS, S/O.SUBRAHMANYAN @ RAJAN, MEDAKKAL HOUSE, VALLUVALLY KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

2. VIDHYA, AGED29YEARS, W/O.SUJITH @ SUJITHKUMAR, MEDAKKAL HOUSE, VALLUVALLIKKARA, KOTTUVALLI VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRA KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS / STATE : -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031 (CRIME NO. 1084/2014 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT).

2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 513 (CRIME NO.1084/2014 OF NORTH PARAVUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1407-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Msd. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J ====================== B.A No.5068 of 2014 ====================== Dated this the 14th day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in Crime No.1084 of 2014 of the North Paravur Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 120(B), 403, 406, 420, 468 and 471 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed this application.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the petitioners are husband and wife. First petitioner is son of the first accused. First accused obtained `2,29,000/- and later, `20,00,000/- on a promise to make the de facto complainant partner in the business of the first accused. That was not done. First accused returned `16,00,000/-. The balance amount of `6,29,000/- is due which was misappropriated. B.A No.5068 of 2014 2 In the meantime, to cheat the de facto complainant, the first accused has transferred shares in the company/interest in the partnership firm in favour of the petitioners.

3. The petitioners have no involvement in the alleged cheating of the de facto complainant by the first accused. There appears to be some difference of opinion between the petitioners and the first accused.

4. Having regard to the relevant circumstances, I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Hence, I am inclined to grant relief but subject to conditions and protecting interest of the de facto complainant. The application is allowed of as under: i) Petitioners shall surrender before the officer inverstigating Crime No.1084/2014 of North Paravur Police Station on 21.07.2014 at 10 a.m and on other day/days as directed by the Investigating officer for interrogation. B.A No.5068 of 2014 3 ii) Petitioners shall co-operate with investigation of the case. iii) In case arrest of the petitioners is recorded, they shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. iv) On such production the petitioners shall be released on bail (if not required to be detained otherwise) on their executing bond for `25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioners. b) Petitioners shall file affidavit before the learned Magistrate while executing the bail bond undertaking that the shares/interest as the case may be, they have in the company/partnership firm shall not be transferred to anybody or encumbered until the case is disposed of or otherwise ordered by the learned magistrate. B.A No.5068 of 2014 4 c) Petitioners shall file attested copy of the aforesaid affidavit, in case it is a company before the Registrar of Companies and in case it is a partnership firm, before the Registrar of Firms and the Registrar/Sub Registrar concerned within three weeks from the date of execution of the bail bond. d) Petitioners shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for interrogation as and when required. e) Petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. f) In case the petitioners violates any of conditon Nos. (c) to (e), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs State of Kerala (AIR2006SC100 Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE vdv //True Copy// P.Ato Judge