Sanjitha vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8843 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 8843 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 July, 2022

Kerala High Court

Sanjitha vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2022

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
   THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1944
                 BAIL APPL. NO. 2676 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:

          SANJITHA
          AGED 35 YEARS
          KENT GLASS HOUSE, FLAT NO. 12 (A) 6
          KANIYAMBUZHA ROAD, VYTILLA, POONITHURA VILLAGE,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682019
          BY ADVS.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
          SREELAKSHMI SABU
          MANJUSHA K
          SMITHA PHILIPOSE
          SHRI.R.RANJITH,SC,KOOVAPPADY GRAMA PANCH
RESPONDENT/S:
    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
          KERALA, PIN - 682031
    2     JOSEKUTTY JOSE
          AGED 41 YEARS
          SON OF JOSE MADATHIL, MADATHIL HOUSE, MANKUZHI
          ROAD, EDAPALLY NORTH,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
          BY ADVS.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
          SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR
          BENNY ANTONY PAREL(B-136)
          ANOOP SEBASTIAN(K/450/2017)
          PRAMITHA AUGUSTINE(K/001133/2019)
          IRINE MATHEW(K/001821/2021)
          ADITHYA KIRAN V.E(K/001850/2021)
          ANJALI NAIR(K/002375/2021)
OTHER PRESENT:

          SR.PP - SMT. SEETHA S.
    THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A. No.2676 of 2022             :2:




                    VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
       -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
                  B.A. No.2676 of 2022
       -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
             Dated this the 7th day of July, 2022

                               ORDER

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.311/2022

of Maradu Police Station alleging commission of offence

punishable under Section 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution allegation is that, the petitioner induced

the defacto complainant to invest an amount of Rs. 33,19,310/-

in an upcoming movie by name "Vikaram" with a promise of

immediate repayment and thereby received the said amount on

various dates from 06.04.2020 as part payments. The petitioner

herein has not repaid the amount till 14.03.2022 and it is

alleged that the petitioner has spent the said money on other

transactions and alleged to have issued a cheque drawn on an

insufficient account in lieu of the money received and thereby

committed the above said offence.

4 .The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

she has been falsely implicated in the above said crime. It is the

case of the petitioner that she is a movie producer who has

produced more than 4 movies in her career in the banner 'Malar

Cinema' and she is also a registered movie producer in

Producers' Association and one of her movies by name 'Vikaram'

is in the post production stage. In the year 2020, the defacto

complainant approached the petitioner offering his interest in

investing in movie production and thereupon, an amount of

Rs.32,50,000/- was received by the petitioner from the defacto

complainant. Due to certain issues, that have cropped up later,

the relationship between the defacto and the petitioner got

worse and further that there was delay in the shooting of the

said movie due to Corona outbreak. Thereupon, as demanded

by the defacto complainant, through one Arun, the defacto

complainant was successful in getting a signed cheque from the

petitioner. The petitioner further submits that she is ready and

willing to settle the amount due to the defacto complainant.

5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant,

Shri. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, seriously opposed the application for

bail mainly submitting that his client has been defrauded

to the tune of Rs.33,19,310/-. The learned Public Prosecutor

also endorsed the fact that an amount of Rs.33,19,310/-

is defrauded at the instance of the petitioner. The

learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the petitioner has

no other criminal antecedents.

6. It is seen that an interim order has been granted on

30.03.2022 to the effect that the petitioner shall not be arrested

in connection with the said crime. The said interim order was

extended from time to time and it is still in force.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case and considering the nature of the allegations, I am inclined

to grant bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions. In

the result, this application is allowed. It is directed that the

petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on

14.07.2022 and shall also subject herself available for

interrogation on 15.07.2022 and in the event of arrest in Crime

No.311/2022 of Maradu Police Station, shall be released on bail

subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall execute 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 Arresting officer ;

(ii) Petitioner shall also appear before the

investigating officer in Crime No.311/2022 of

Maradu Police Station as and when summoned to

do so;

(iii) The petitioner shall not attempt to contact the

victim or the defacto complainant or interfere with

the investigation or to influence or intimidate any

witness in Crime No.311/2022 of Maradu Police

Station;

(iv) The petitioner shall surrender her passport

before the jurisdictional court. If the petitioner

does not have a passport, she shall execute an

affidavit to that effect and file the same before the

said court within seven days of release on bail;