Ummer vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 4186 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1944
                      BAIL APPL. NO. 2671 OF 2022
    CRIME NO.149 OF 2022 OF ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1626/2022 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                     OF FIRST CLASS ,VADAKKANCHERRY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          UMMER,AGED 52 YEARS
          S/O. KUNJAMMU, AGED 52 YEARS,
          PUZHANGARA ILLATH HOUSE,
          VELLARAKKAD DESOM,
          VELLARAKKAD VILLAGE,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680584

          BY ADVS.
          K.P.SUDHEER
          SANTHEEP ANKARATH



RESPONDENTS/STATE:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
          KOCHI, PIN - 682031

    2     STATION HOUSE OFFICER
          ERUMAPETTY POLICE STATION,
          ERUMAPETTY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680584

          BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR



OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.No.2671/2022                           2

                                    ORDER

This is an application for regular bail.

2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.149/2022 of

Erumapetty Police Station, Thrissur District, which was registered alleging

commission of offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered

into an agreement with the de facto complainant permitting the de facto

complainant to cut and remove rubber trees and received a sum of

Rs.3,25,000/ on the premise that the rubber trees were standing on the

property belonging to him. It is alleged that, later, it was found that the

property in question is Government land.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

is absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the land in question

has been in possession of the petitioner for quite a while and assignment

applications are pending before the revenue authorities. It is submitted that

the assignment proceedings could not be completed only on account of delay

by the revenue authorities. It is submitted that the petitioner had bona fide

entered into the agreement and that he is willing to repay the amount of

Rs.3,25,000/- to the de facto complainant.

5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is

submitted that the matter is under investigation.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the fact that the petitioner had undertaken to pay a sum of

Rs.3,25,000/- back to the de facto complainant, I am of the opinion that the

petitioner can be granted bail as his continued detention does not appear to

be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. 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.149/2022 of Erumapetty Police Station as and when called upon to

do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation,

influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.149/2022 of

Erumapetty Police Station;

(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.149/2022 of Erumapetty Police Station may file an application

before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

The undertaking given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner will repay sum of Rs.3,25,000/- to that de facto complainant within

one week from the date of release following this order is recorded. It is made

clear that, if there is any violation of the undertaking by the petitioner, the

de facto complainant may move this Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE acd

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2671/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.03.2022 IN CMP NO.1626/2022 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, WADAKKANCHERY.