High CourtsSingle Bench

Prasad vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 20 October 2023 · Citation: (2023) 10 KL CK 0139

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gopinath P., J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 406, 420
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9171 Of 2023
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

13 paragraphs · 557 words

Gopinath P., J

1.

This is an application for regular bail.

2.

The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1446 of 2023 of Thoppumpady Police Station, Ernakulam District, alleging commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner is that after receiving a sum of Rs.11,25,000/- from the de-facto complainants and entering into an agreement with them for construction of a building, the petitioner cheated the de-facto complainants by not constructing the building and by not returning the amount collected from the de-facto complainants. The petitioner has been arrested on 02.10.2023 and he is in custody from that date.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that even if the entire allegations in the First Information Statement are accepted to be true, they only make out a civil dispute and no element of cheating is involved. It is submitted that the petitioner is a chronic liver patient and reference is made in this regard to Annexure – A2. It is submitted that Annexure – A2 shows that even as recently as in the month of July 2023, the petitioner had to be admitted to Intensive Care and was discharged only on 03.08.2023.

4.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail essentially on the ground that there are other cases of cheating which have been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that nearly 5 cases of similar nature are registered against the petitioner.

5.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply would submit that the earlier criminal antecedents reported against the petitioner are cases registered in the year 2015 again relating to some civil dispute and that may not be a ground to deny bail to the petitioner.

6.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail subject to conditions. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has criminal antecedents, no other compelling reason is shown as to why the petitioner must be continued in custody. The health condition of the petitioner as discernible from Anneuxre- A2 is also a factor to be taken into consideration for deciding whether bail can be granted to the petitioner.

7.

In the result this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating officer in Crime No.1446 of 2023 of Thoppumpady Police Station, Ernakulam District as and when summoned to do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate the de-facto complainants or any witness in Crime No.1446 of 2023 of Thoppumpady Police Station, Ernakulam District ;

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.1446 of 2023 of Thoppumpady Police Station, Ernakulam District, may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.