Kerala High Court
Denny T. P vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024
CRIME NO.251/2024 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
1 DENNY T. P
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O PRAKASH,THAKIDIYEL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGOM KARA,
CHIRAKADAVU VILLAGE, KARJIRAPPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686520
2 SILPA DENNY,
AGED 33 YEARS,
W/O DENNY T. PTHAKIDIYEL HOUSE,VADAKKUMBHAGOM KARA,
CHIRAKADAVU VILLAGE, KARJIRAPPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686520
BY ADVS.
DENNY VARGHESE
LIJO RAJU
PRINCE J PANANAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ADIMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, PIN - 685561
PP.SMT.SEENA C.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3197 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) .
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.251/2024 of Adimaly Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, with an intention to cheat, the first accused entered into a property sale agreement with the defacto complainant on 11.09.2023. The said agreement was renewed on 19.09.2023. As per the agreement, about Rs.13 lakhs was paid to the first accused, through bank accounts and directly. Subsequently, it is revealed to the defacto complainant that the accused has no right or authority over the property offered to be transferred to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the defacto complainant demanded the amount from the complainant. The first accused issued a cheque in favour of the defacto complainant, BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024 3 but the same was dishonoured. Hence, this complaint.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The counsel submitted that the allegation in the complaint is only regarding the violation in the sale agreement. It is also submitted that there is no criminal offence made out even if the entire allegations are accepted. It is also submitted that the defacto complainant and their men forcefully obtained a cheque from the petitioners and the first petitioner instituted a suit before the civil court. Thereafter, the cheque was presented and notice under the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act was issued to the first petitioner, for which the petitioners sent a reply notice. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide any conditions if this court releases them on bail. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor. The complaint is filed based on a private complaint filed before the jurisdictional court, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Whether the offence alleged is made out in the facts and circumstances of BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024 4 the case is to be investigated by the investigating officer. I am of the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners can be released on bail after imposing conditions.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
8. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024 5 officer concerned;
3. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this Court.
7. Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any given by the petitioners even while the petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663) Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE msp