Kerala High Court
Vijumon P.V vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:50982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7905 OF 2025
CRIME NO.215/2025 OF VELLOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 VIJUMON P.V.
AGED 46 YEARS
SON OF VIDHYADHARAN, PALLATTUKUZHHIYIL HOUSE,
ERUMPANAM P.O., VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686605.
2 SANJEEV P.T.
AGED 50 YEARS
PUTHUPARAMBIL, PERUVA P.O., MULAKKULAM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686610.
3 ASHOKAN
AGED 49 YEARS
OLAMADATHIL, KARIKKODU P.O., PERUVA, MULAKKULAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686610.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VELLOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686605.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:50982
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A.No.7905 of 2025
...............................................
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.215/2025 of Velloor Police Station, Kottayam, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 340(1) of the Bharatia Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS in short).
3. According to the prosecution, the accused together with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant agreed to sell the property of first petitioner for a sum of Rs.75,000/-, and executed an agreement, but on enquiry it was understood that the first petitioner was not the owner of property, and thereby the accused cheated the de facto complainant and committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been falsely arrayed as accused and that they have no involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:50982
7. The first petitioner's father, though had a large extent of property, he had sold all those properties except 1.53 ares, apart from certain properties over which he had possessory rights including all those properties, he executed a settlement deed in favour of his son, the first petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner executed an agreement for sale with the defacto complainant proposing to sell 22.68 ares of property in survey no.703/3 of Keezhur Village, knowing fully well that he had title over only 1.53 ares. The record of rights clearly indicates that the petitioner was in ownership of only 1.53 ares and despite such knowledge a large amount of money was collected under an agreement for sale.
8. The above allegations prima facie indicate that the petitioner had attempted to defraud the defacto complainant. However, since most of these allegations are covered by documentary proof, I am of the view that the circumstances do not require custodial interrogation, but for the purpose of completing the investigation, petitioners must be subjected themselves to interrogation under a limited custody.
9. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another, [2020 (5) SCC 1], it was held that while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:50982 case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
10. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Since the allegations are covered by documents, I am of the view that their bail application can be allowed on conditions.
11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following conditions:
(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer on 17.07.2025, and shall subject themselves to interrogation, which period shall be treated as limited custody for the purpose of completing the investigation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required and shall also co-operate with the investigation.
(d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while they are on bail.
(f) Petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.
B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:50982 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.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE mea B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:50982 APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7905/2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NUMBER 215 OF 2025 OF VELLOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 29/6/2018 EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF FIRST PETITIONER IN FAVOR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER WHICH WAS REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 920 OF 2018 OF VAIKOM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.4.2025 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKULAM VILLAGE TO THE FIRST PETITIONER Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKULAM VILLAGE DATED 5.3.2018 TO THE FIRST PETITIONER Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE FIRST PETITIONER AND DE FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 25/5/2022 Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND AGREEMENT DATED 18/7/2023 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT AND FIRST PETITIONER Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE THIRD AGREEMENT DATED 16/1/2024 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE FIRST PETITIONER AND THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 22.06.2023 IN WP(C) NO.27301/2022 Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLOOR POLICE STATION Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKULAM Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SHO OF VELLOOR POLICE STATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER