Kerala High Court
Madhusoodhanan vs State Of Kerala on 8 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
CRIME NO.748/2019 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONERS:
1 MADHUSOODHANAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI,
SINDU VIHAR, ERAVIPURAM,
SOORANAD, KOLLAM RURAL,
KERALA, INDIA.
691011
2 BABU
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.GOPINATHAN PILLAI,
SINDU VIHAR, ERAVIPURAM,
SOORANAD, KOLLAM RURAL,
KERALA, INDIA.
3 SALINI
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O.VAKKAM SASI,
SANTHOSH BHAVANAM,
NEAR PALLI, PALAMUKKU,
EDAKKADU, EZHAMMILE,
SOORANADU, KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
2
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, PIN-682031.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SOORANADU POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM RURAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-690 522.
3 ADDL.R3 SINDHU
W/O SATHEESH BABU,
THOPPIL VEEDU,
THENGAMAM,
PATHANAMTHITTA,
SOORANADU,
KOLLAM RURAL,KERALA,INDIA-690522
IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED
24.07.2020 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2020.
R1 AND 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT.V.SREEJA-PP
OTHERS PRESENT:
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
3
ORDER
Dated this the 8th day of February 2021
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of the
Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video
Conference.
2. The applicant Nos. 1 and 2 are twin brothers
and applicant No. 3 is the wife of the 1st applicant. They
are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No. 748 of 2019 of
Sooranad Police Station, Kollam District for having
allegedly committed offences punishable under Section
420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the
applicants had dishonestly induced 3rd respondent/de
facto complaint, a lady by inducing her to deliver a sum of
Rs. 15,33,171/- during the period from 18.01.2016 to
10.01.2018 making her belief that she would be cleansed
of the Brahmaraksha (a spirit) by exorcising and
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
conducting some poojas. But, no desired results were
achieved and the entire amount was misappropriated by
the accused in furtherance of common intention.
4. The applicant states that the allegations are not
true and that they are totally innocent and in fact that the
de facto complaint had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs
from the 3rd applicant in January 2018 and had issued a
cheque for Rs. 2 lakhs towards the repayment of that
amount. The de facto complaint did not repay the
amount, the cheque was dishonored in consequence of
which ST. No. 41/2018 was filed by the 3rd applicant
against the de facto complainant under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court, Sasthamcotta. A civil suit was also filed
for realization of the amount before the Munsiff court as
O.S No. 98/2018. The de facto complainant was wrecked
by filling of the complaint under the civil suit in
consequence of which she filed a private complaint
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
against the applicants for having cheated her and the
present crime was registered. It is stated that the
applicants were involved in some other crimes in the year
2015 which had gathered great publicity. News had come
in various news papers, cuttings of which have been
produced the de facto complainant herein. But those
crimes of the year 2015 ended in acquittal as is evident
by the judgment of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-1, Haripad produced by the applicants. The
applicants state that they do not have any other criminal
antecedents and they are willing to co-operate with the
investigation. Custodial interrogation of the applicants
may not be required. The de facto complainant has no
financial capability to pay the amount and therefore, they
may be granted pre-arrest bail.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
applicants, learned counsel appearing for the de facto
complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor.
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
6. The learned counsel appearing for the de facto
complainant has produced several documents pertaining
to her bank transactions which would indicate that she
had capability of advancing over a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to
the applicants. It is also admitted by the de facto
complainant that the applicants had made her believe that
it was essential to conduct certain poojas for exorcising
the evil spirit, which has obsessed her. She did not get the
desired results and that is why she had to file the
complaint. As stated by the respondents/de facto
complaint was made to belief that, she would be getting
rid of the evil spirits which had obsessed her by exercising
and it is towards remuneration that, she had paid the
alleged amount and also had issued certain cheques, one
of which was allegedly misused by the accused to filed a
complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. The learned
counsel appearing for the de facto complainant submits
that, the acquittal of the applicants in the 2015 Crime
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
was because the de facto complainant and therein had
died and the witnesses did not support the prosecution
case. But that is no reason to believe the applicants are
innocent.
7. After having heard the submissions on both
sides, I find it rather queer that the de facto complainant
had continuously paid the amounts to the applicants over
a period of two years despite their involvement in a Crime
in the year 2015, which had gathered huge publicity,
evident fron the paper cuttings produced. The de facto
complainant pretends to be ignorant about those incidents
and has paid the amounts to the applicants. The
explanation for the issuance of cheque does not appear to
be very satisfactory. It is only after filing of the complaint
under Section 138 of NI Act and the civil suit that the de
facto complainant comes up with the criminal complaint
against the applicants. The complicity of the applicants
could therefore be doubted. Custodial interrogation of the
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
applicants may not be required for the purpose of
investigation in view of the fact that there are bank
records and documents to prove the prosecution case.
Under such circumstances, the application is allowed
and the applicants are directed to surrender before the
Investigating Officer within two weeks. After
interrogation, in the event of their arrest, they shall be
released on bail on the execution of a bond for
Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two
solvent sureties for the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following
conditions:
(i) They shall appear before the
Investigating Officer on all Saturdays
between 9.00 am to 12.00 noon for a
period of two months or until filing of
the final report, whichever is earlier,
and cooperate with the investigation.
Bail Appl..No.3692 OF 2020
(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence,
intimidate or influence witnesses.
(iii) They shall not get involved in similar
offences during the bail period.
In case of the breach of the bail conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of
the bail.
(Sd/-)
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
LU
