CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Byju M.S,S/o Sugathan vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 21 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 KL CK 0207

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Babu, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 420
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2214 Of 2022
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

11 paragraphs · 371 words

K.Babu, J

1.

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.79/2022 of Kelakam Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The defacto complainant in this case is the brother of the petitioner/accused.

3.

According to the prosecution, the petitioner had obtained an amount of Rs.10,35,000/- from his brother, the defacto complainant on several occasions after giving promise to transfer the ownership in respect of a bus bearing registration No.KL-58-R 8817. The accused, thereafter, neither transferred the ownership of the bus in favour of the defacto complainant nor returned the money and thereby obtained wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the defacto complainant.

4.

The case of the petitioner is that he is innocent of the allegations levelled against him. According to the petitioner, the defacto complainant, his brother, had invested some amounts in the business of the petitioner expecting return. The petitioner used to give share to the defacto complainant from the income generated from the business. But, due to unexpected lockdown consequent to the spread of Covid-19, the business fell in loss. According to the petitioner, he had paid part of the amount to the defacto complainant.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea of the petitioner.

7.

Having gone through the entire materials, I am of the view that there is some doubt as to the genuineness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. There is no possibility of the petitioner to flee from justice. Considering the entire circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner could establish a prima facie case for getting the benefits contemplated in Section 438 Cr.P.C.

In the result, the Bail Application is allowed as follows :-

(i) The Station House Officer, Kelakam Police Station is directed to release the petitioner, on bail, in the event, he is arrested, on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

(ii) The petitioner shall not influence the witnesses in this case or tamper with the evidence.