High CourtsSingle Bench

Koyamon vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 15 December 2021 · Citation: (2021) 12 KL CK 0115

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.S.Sudha, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 406, 420
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1423 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

12 paragraphs · 441 words

C.S.Sudha, J

1.

This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for per-arrest bail filed by the petitioner/accused in Crime No.731/2020 of Cheruthuruthy Police Station, Thrissur District alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

2.

The prosecution case is that the accused with the intention to make unlawful gain for himself and unlawful loss to the informant, received an amount of Rs.30,10,000/- from the informant on the promise that the latter would be made a partner in his business. However, contrary to his promise, the informant was neither made a partner nor his money returned. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.

3.

The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the investigation has not been completed.

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- had been borrowed by the petitioner/accused from the informant, for which an exorbitant rate of interest was demanded by the informant. He also referred to Annexures A3 to A18 to substantiate his argument that an amount of more than Rs.16.00 lakhs has been repaid. It is submitted that if the intention of the petitioner/accused was to cheat the informant, there would be no question of repayment of such an amount of money. It is also submitted that the petitioner/accused has no criminal antecedents and if at all there is any dispute, it can only be a dispute of civil nature.

5.

Heard both sides. Perused the records.

6.

As referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is seen from A3 toA18 that a substantial amount has been repaid by the petitioner/accused. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 IPC are prima facie made out. Custodial interrogation does not appear to be necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that pre-arrest bail can be granted.

In the result, the application is allowed subject to the following conditions :

(i) The petitioner in the event of his arrest in the aforesaid crime shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each.

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the latter.

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and he shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses in any manner or interfere with the investigation.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence(s) while on bail.