Kerala High Court
Denny T. P vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024
CRIME NO.251/2024 OF ADIMALY POLICE STATION, IDUKKI
PETITIONER/ACCUSED
1 DENNY T. P
AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O PRAKASH,THAKIDIYEL HOUSE, VADAKKUMBHAGOM KARA,
CHIRAKADAVU VILLAGE, KARJIRAPPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686520
2 SILPA DENNY,
AGED 33 YEARS,
W/O DENNY T. PTHAKIDIYEL HOUSE,VADAKKUMBHAGOM KARA,
CHIRAKADAVU VILLAGE, KARJIRAPPALLY TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686520
BY ADVS.
DENNY VARGHESE
LIJO RAJU
PRINCE J PANANAL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
ADIMALI POLICE STATION, IDUKKI, PIN - 685561
PP.SMT.SEENA C.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3197 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal
Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) .
2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.251/2024 of
Adimaly Police Station. The above case is registered against the
petitioners alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case is that, with an intention to cheat, the
first accused entered into a property sale agreement with the
defacto complainant on 11.09.2023. The said agreement was
renewed on 19.09.2023. As per the agreement, about Rs.13 lakhs
was paid to the first accused, through bank accounts and directly.
Subsequently, it is revealed to the defacto complainant that the
accused has no right or authority over the property offered to be
transferred to the defacto complainant. Therefore, the defacto
complainant demanded the amount from the complainant. The
first accused issued a cheque in favour of the defacto complainant,
BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024
but the same was dishonoured. Hence, this complaint.
4. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Public
Prosecutor.
5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the
entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out. The
counsel submitted that the allegation in the complaint is only
regarding the violation in the sale agreement. It is also submitted
that there is no criminal offence made out even if the entire
allegations are accepted. It is also submitted that the defacto
complainant and their men forcefully obtained a cheque from the
petitioners and the first petitioner instituted a suit before the civil
court. Thereafter, the cheque was presented and notice under the
provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act was issued to the first
petitioner, for which the petitioners sent a reply notice. The
counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready
to abide any conditions if this court releases them on bail. The
Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
6. This Court considered the contention of the petitioners and
the Public Prosecutor. The complaint is filed based on a private
complaint filed before the jurisdictional court, which was forwarded
under Section 156(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Whether
the offence alleged is made out in the facts and circumstances of
BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024
the case is to be investigated by the investigating officer. I am of
the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the
petitioners is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the
case. The petitioners can be released on bail after imposing
conditions.
7. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the
rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16)
SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed
that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same
inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception
so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing
fair trial.
8. Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and
considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail
Application is allowed with the following directions:
1. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo
interrogation;
2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer
proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released
on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent
sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
BAIL APPL. NO. 3197 OF 2024
officer concerned;
3. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation as and when required. The
petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and
shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer;
4. Petitioners shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court;
5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to
the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of
the commission of which they are suspected;
6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the
petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in
accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this
Court.
7. Needless to mention, it would be well within the
powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the
matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the
information, if any given by the petitioners even while the
petitioners are on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663)
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
msp
