High CourtsSingle Bench

Naran Pada Kaipeng vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 24 August 2022 · Citation: (2022) 08 KL CK 0228

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, 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. 6235 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

14 paragraphs · 502 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 1332/2021 of Palluruthy Police Station, alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

According to the prosecution, petitioner with intent to deceive the defacto complainant sent a voice text and made video call to the defacto complainant introducing himself as a doctor working in England and promised to take her to England and provide an employment on her transferring an amount equivalent to £30,000/- and thereafter, when the defacto complainant transferred the said amounts, the accused failed to take her to England or provide an employment as promised and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.V.N.Sankarjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire prosecution allegations are false and that petitioner has no involvement in the crime. It was further pointed out that petitioner is also actually a victim of a criminal racket being operated to cheat others and petitioner's bank account, ATM card and the bank pass book were all taken by his friend, who had probably misused and exploited the same. In any event, it was pointed out that, since petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2022, the continued detention may not be permitted.

5.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that even though the final report has been filed on 11.08.2022, the petitioner who is hailing from Tripura may abscond and hence bail ought not to be granted.

6.

I have considered the rival submissions. Though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, since he has been in custody from 16.07.2022, I am of the view that continued detention may not be required. However, since the petitioner is hailing from Tripura, sufficient conditions must be imposed for the purpose of securing his presence at the time of trial.

7.

Having regard to the necessity of imposing strict conditions, this bail application is allowed on the following conditions :-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction. One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner and another surety shall be from Kerala.

(b) Petitioner shall co-operate with the trial of the case.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he attempt to tamper with the evidence.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave the country without the permission of the jurisdictional Court.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.