High CourtsSingle Bench

Arockiyanathan And Ors vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 22 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 KL CK 0037

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 406, 420
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1640 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 477 words
1.

This is an application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2.

The applicants are accused 2 and 5 in Crime No.379/2019 of Chalissery Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable

under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that between 10.05.2019 and 14.11.2019, the applicants in furtherance of common intention with two other

accused, dishonestly induced the de facto complainant and others to deliver a sum of Rs.7,18,000/- along with the passport and PAN Card promising

to arrange job visas for them in Australia and accordingly, the amount was received by them, but no employment as agreed was provided and the

amount was also not returned and thus the applicants in furtherance of common intention with others cheated the de facto complainant and others and

misappropriated the amount.

4.

The applicants state that they are drivers of the 1st accused and that they have absolutely nothing to do with the alleged transaction between the

other accused and the de facto complainant. The amounts were received by other accused and the applicants have nothing to do with the receipt of

the amount and they have not wrongfully gained in the transaction, and hence, they seek regular bail. They were arrested on 30.01.2021 and have

been custody since then.

5.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor points out that the applicants are involved in two other crimes, apart from this and that they belong to Tamil Nadu

and therefore it cannot be said with certainty about their appearance before the court for trial and hence the application for bail is opposed.

7.

After having heard the submissions made on both sides, I find that the applicants have been in custody for a fairly long time and further detention

may not be required. The applicants state that they have already been granted bail in a connected matter from the Sessions Court, Thrissur on certain

conditions. Under the circumstances, the further detention of the applicant will not serve any purpose.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed and the applicants are directed to be released on bail on the execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees

fifty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, on the following other

conditions:

i) They shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation;

ii) They shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses; and

iii) They shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional Court.