Dr Sangeeth Sadanandan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 7006 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

    CRIME NO.3696/2020 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam


PETITIONER/S:

                DR SANGEETH SADANANDAN
                AGED 39 YEARS
                VIJAYA SADANAM,
                EDAYAM,VALAKOM,PATHANAPURAM,
                KOLLAM - 691502

                BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
                682031

      2         ADDL. R2. SHERLY C.O
                PALAKKAL HOUSE, ULIYANADU MURI, KARIKKOM P. O,
                VETTIKAVALA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK,
                KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN-691502.

                (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 18.11.2020 IN CRL. MA
                NO. 1/2020 IN BA NO. 6802/2020)

                R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
                R2 BY ADV. SMT.NISHA K.PETER
                R2 BY ADV. SRI.ALEX JOSEPH
                SMT.V.SREEJA-PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION               ON
01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

                                2

                           ORDER

Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

This is an application filed under Section 438

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The applicant is the sole accused in Crime

No.3696/2020 of Kottarakkara Police Station,

Kollam, for having allegedly committed offences

punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 of the

IPC. Originally the crime was registered as Crime

No.1803/2019 of Mannanthala Police Station for the

aforesaid offences and subsequently it was found

that major part of the transaction had taken place

within the jurisdiction of Kottarakkara Police

Station and accordingly the matter was transferred

to the Kottarakkara Police Station and the present

crime has been registered.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

applicant is a businessman and he is also involved

in contracts of building construction. The de Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

facto complainant is a lady who is a Principal of

a Higher Secondary School and her husband and is

allegedly employed abroad. She entrusted the

applicant to construct her house and in

consequence of that he started constructing the

house. It is alleged that the applicant

dishonestly induced the de facto complainant and

her husband to deliver a total sum of over Rs.2

crores to him and he also started construction.

The money was paid to him in installments. But the

construction was not yet completed. The applicant

thereby cheated her and it is also understood that

he has concocted documents regarding the agreement

between the de facto complainant and her husband

and he produced the same before the Sub court and

obtained an order of the attachment of the

properties of the de facto complainant. It is

stated that the applicant's claim that a sum of

Rs.78 lakhs is due to him and he is not liable to Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

pay anything to the de facto complainant is

absolutely untrue and therefore the crime has been

registered.

4. The applicant states that the allegations

are all untrue. He has proceeded with a

construction and more construction has been done

with the money that has been provided to him by

the de facto complainant's husband and in fact

Rs.78,75,000/- is due to him and for realizing

that amount he filed OS No.190/2019 before the Sub

court, Thiruvananthapuram and also got attachment

before judgment. The de facto complainant's

husband has appeared in that suit and also filed a

written statement and objection to the attachment

petition. After hearing the attachment petition,

it was made absolute ignoring the objections

raised by the de facto complainant's husband.

While the attachment was prevailing the de facto

complainant had filed a criminal complaint before Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

the Mannanthala Police and in consequence to that

the crime No.1803/2019 was registered at that

police station. A search of the applicant's house

was also conducted and the investigation

progressed. The applicant was interrogated a

number of times. He has been co-operating with the

investigation and thereafter it was realized that

a major portion of the transaction took place

within the jurisdiction of Kottarakkara Police

station and consequently the CD file was

transferred to Kottarakkara police station and the

present crime was registered. Even before the

crime was transferred from Mannanthala police

station, the de facto complainant filed another

complaint before the Kottarakkara police station,

in consequence of which Crime No.3455/2020 was

registered before the Kottarakkara Police Station.

But on transfer of the crime from Mannanthala

police station and registered this crime as Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

3699/2020, Crime No.3455/2020 was referred. The

applicant states that the de facto complainant

went upon harassing him and that actually her

husband owes money to him and not vice versa.

There is absolutely no attempt on his part to

cheat the de facto complainant or her husband and

that the construction has progressed much ahead

and the money provided by the de facto complainant

and her husband has been completely spent on the

house which has been constructed, and therefore he

seeks pre-arrest bail.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the

applicant, the learned counsel appearing for the

de facto complainant and also the learned Public

Prosecutor.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor admits that

the applicant had been subjected to interrogation

and he was co-operating with the investigation at

the Mannanthala Police Station. The crime was Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

transferred to Kottarakkara police station and

before that a search of his house was also

conducted. The transactions are all revealed and

it is to be borrowed from bank records. It is

alleged that an agreement was concocted by the

applicant, for that specimen signatures have

already been taken and it has been sent for expert

opinion. Under the circumstances, there is nothing

more to be recovered from the applicant and the

learned counsel appearing for the de facto

complainant submits that where he has invested the

money will have to be revealed, for that he has to

be subjected to custodial interrogation. I am not

in agreement with that. The applicant has been co-

operating with the investigation, there is no

possibility of his fleeing from justice and he has

also no criminal antecedents. It also appears that

the dispute between them is primarily of civil in

nature and is being considered by a competent Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

civil court as OS No.190/2019. Under the

circumstances, I find no reason to decline

granting of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

In the result the application is allowed and

the applicant is directed to surrender before the

investigating officer within two weeks, and after

interrogation in the event of his being arrested,

he shall be released on bail on execution of a

bond for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) with

two solvent sureties for the like amount each to

the satisfaction of the investigating officer and

on the following conditions;

1. He shall not tamper with evidence, influence

or intimidate witnesses.

2.He shall appear before the investigating

officer as and when called for.

3.He shall not get involved in similar offences

during the bail period.

In the event of violating the bail conditions, Bail Appl..No.6802 OF 2020

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for

cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON JUDGE SPK