Kerala High Court
Gilbert Lourduraj James vs State Of Kerala on 13 September, 2024
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 1
2024:KER:70363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1779 OF 2023
CRIME NO.195/2023 OF Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2023 IN CRL.MC NO.133 OF 2023
OF FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
GILBERT LOURDURAJ JAMES
AGED 43 YEARS
RESIDENT OF 16, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
COIMBATORE, 641005
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI.NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE
SRI.JAYARAMAN S.
SMT.LITTY PETER
SMT.ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED NO.1:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031
2 AVINESH PUSHPAKARAN
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O PUSHPAKARAN,
HOUSE NO 12, VASANTH NAGAR,
PATTURAIKAL, THRISSUR - 680002
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 2
2024:KER:70363
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.C.R. SIVAKUMAR
SMT.S.SOORYA GAYATHRY
SMT.SUBHAJA P.
SRI.HARI R.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.NOS.1793/2023, 1794/2023, 1797/2023
& 1806/2023, THE COURT ON 13.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 3
2024:KER:70363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1793 OF 2023
CRIME NO.206/2023 OF Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2023 IN CRL.MC NO.137 OF 2023 OF
FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
GILBERT LOURDURAJ JAMES
AGED 43 YEARS
RESIDENT OF 16, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
COIMBATORE - 641005
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI.NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE
SRI.JAYARAMAN S.
SMT.LITTY PETER
SMT.ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED NO.1:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031
2 AVINESH PUSHPAKARAN
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O PUSHPAKARAN,
HOUSE NO 12, VASANTH NAGAR,
PATTURAIKAL, THRISSUR - 680002
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 4
2024:KER:70363
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.C.R. SIVAKUMAR
SMT.S.SOORYA GAYATHRY
SMT.SUBHAJA P.
SRI.HARI R.
SMT.BINI.K
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1779/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 13.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 5
2024:KER:70363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1794 OF 2023
CRIME NO.205/2023 OF Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2023 IN CRL.MC NO.135 OF 2023 OF
FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
GILBERT LOURDURAJ JAMES
AGED 43 YEARS
RESIDENT OF 16, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
COIMBATORE - 641005
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI.NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE
SRI.JAYARAMAN S.
SMT.LITTY PETER
SMT.ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED NO.1:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031, PIN - 682031
2 AVINESH PUSHPAKARAN
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O PUSHPAKARAN,
HOUSE NO.12, VASANTH NAGAR,
PATTURAIKAL, THRISSUR - 680002
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 6
2024:KER:70363
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.C.R. SIVAKUMAR
SMT.S.SOORYA GAYATHRY
SMT.SUBHAJA P.
SRI.HARI R.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1779/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 13.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 7
2024:KER:70363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1797 OF 2023
CRIME NO.162/2023 OF Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2023 IN CRL.MC NO.134 OF 2023 OF
FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
GILBERT LOURDURAJ JAMES
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O JAMES A,
RESIDENT OF 16, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
COIMBATORE - 641005
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI.NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE
SRI.JAYARAMAN S.
SMT.LITTY PETER
SMT.ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED NO.1:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031
2 AVINESH PUSHPAKARAN
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O PUSHPAKARAN,
HOUSE NO 12, VASANTH NAGAR,
PATTURAIKAL, THRISSUR - 680002
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 8
2024:KER:70363
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.C.R. SIVAKUMAR
SMT.S.SOORYA GAYATHRY
SMT.SUBHAJA P.
SRI.HARI R.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1779/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 13.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 9
2024:KER:70363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 1806 OF 2023
CRIME NO.196/2023 OF Thrissur East Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2023 IN CRL.MC NO.136 OF 2023 OF
FIRST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
GILBERT LOURDURAJ JAMES
AGED 43 YEARS
RESIDENT OF 16, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR
COIMBATORE - 641005
BY ADVS.
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL
SRI.NIRMAL CHERIYAN VARGHESE
SRI.JAYARAMAN S.
SMT.LITTY PETER
SMT.ANUPA ANNA JOSE KANDOTH
SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & ACCUSED NO.1:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM - 682031
2 AVINESH PUSHPAKARAN
AGED 46 YEARS, S/O PUSHPAKARAN,
HOUSE NO 12, VASANTH NAGAR,
PATTURAIKAL, THRISSUR - 680002
BY ADVS.
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 10
2024:KER:70363
SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.C.R. SIVAKUMAR
SMT.S.SOORYA GAYATHRY
SMT.SUBHAJA P.
SRI.HARI R.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.09.2024, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.1779/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 13.09.2024 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.M.C No.1779/23 & Conn. Cases 11
2024:KER:70363
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
--------------------------------
Crl.M.C Nos.1779, 1793, 1794,
1797 & 1806 of 2023
---------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024
COMMON ORDER
These five petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short 'Cr.P.C') challenge five different
orders of the First Additional Sessions Court, Thrissur, granting
anticipatory bail to the second respondent, who is the first accused in all
the five different crimes. Since the issues involved in these cases are
identical, they are being considered and disposed of by this common
order.
2. Below is a tabular column relating to the respective case
numbers under consideration with corresponding crime numbers, and
case numbers of the orders under challenge, for easier comprehension.
Case Nos. Crime Nos. Case Nos. of impugned order
Crl.M.C No.1779/2023 Crime No.195/2023 Crl.M.C No.133/2023
Crl.M.C No.1793/2023 Crime No.206/2023 Crl.M.C No.137/2023
Crl.M.C No.1794/2023 Crime No.205/2023 Crl.M.C No.135/2023
Crl.M.C No.1797/2023 Crime No.162/2023 Crl.M.C No.134/2023
Crl.M.C No.1806/2023 Crime No.196/2023 Crl.M.C No.136/2023
3. The above mentioned crimes were registered pursuant to five
different complaints filed by the petitioner before the City Police
2024:KER:70363
Commissioner, Thrissur, alleging forgery and cheating committed by the
accused. In the complaint, petitioner alleged that he is an entrepreneur,
involved in various businesses including venture capital investments.
Complainant alleged that, after becoming acquainted with the first
accused in 2016, the first accused, induced him with various investment
proposals and with an intention to cheat, collected large amounts of
money promising to repay the same as soon as sanctions were obtained
from the bank. The first accused managed to win over the complainant's
trust on the basis of documents produced by the first accused along with
other accused, stating that the credit sanctions of large amounts of loan
from the banks are due and that as and when those are received, the
amount borrowed from the complainant will be repaid. When the
repayment was not forthcoming, the complainant verified the documents
that were handed over and realised that they were all forged including
the company profile shown to him and the first accused had even
managed to transfer a large portion of the amounts given to other
accused immediately after such transfer and thereby the first accused
along with others misappropriated huge amounts thus committing the
offences under sections 120B, 405, 406, 415, 417, 418, 420, 464, 465,
468, 471 and 473 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
4. Pursuant to the above complaints, five separate crimes were
registered alleging that the accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy
2024:KER:70363
amongst themselves and induced the defacto complainant to believe that
accused 2 and 3 were in need of money for business purposes and
induced the defacto complainant to handover large amounts of money on
the basis of fake purchase orders and letters of credit and thereafter the
accused misappropriated the same, thereby committing the offences
alleged.
5. After the crimes were registered, the first accused filed five
separate applications for anticipatory bail as mentioned in the tabular
column. The learned Sessions Judge, who considered the aforesaid bail
applications, had, by the impugned orders, granted anticipatory bail to
the second respondent. The Court also directed the accused to
surrender within 7 days and subject himself to interrogation and was
thereafter directed to be released on the same day itself. Immediately,
petitioner, who is the defacto complainant in all the crimes, approached
this Court through these petitions under section 482 Cr.P.C challenging
the orders granting anticipatory bail. On the date of admission, this
Court stayed the operation of the impugned order.
6. It needs to be mentioned at this juncture that in the
meantime, the remaining accused in each of the crimes were arrested
and were released on bail, after being in custody for several days.
7. Sri. K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan, the learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the impugned orders granting anticipatory bail
2024:KER:70363
to the first accused in all the crimes are perverse and that the learned
Sessions Judge had misread the nature of the complaints. The learned
counsel further submitted that the allegations raised by the petitioner in
the complaint and as seen from the F.I.R will reveal that the first
accused was instrumental in forging various documents of banks
sanctioning credit facilities, which induced the defacto complainant to
give loans to the remaining accused and that the first accused is the
kingpin behind the entire crime and without his custodial interrogation,
the truth of the matter would not be able to be brought out. The learned
counsel further submitted that, cancellation of bail on the basis of
violation of conditions and challenge against a perverse order granting
bail, stand on different footings and therefore, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
8. Sri. C.K.Suresh, the learned Public Prosecutor while
supporting the stance of the petitioner, contended, after referring to the
statement filed by the investigating officer, that the investigation
conducted so far has revealed that all the remaining accused became
acquainted with the defacto complainant through the first accused and
that the crime is understood to have been committed pursuant to a
conspiracy that took place in the house of the first accused who had
created forged documents to induce the defacto complainant to
handover large amounts of money. The learned Public Prosecutor
2024:KER:70363
further submitted that the investigation conducted so far has revealed
that the first accused had obtained an amount of Rs.44,00,000/- from
the amount involved in Crime No.206/2023 immediately after the alleged
loan amount was disbursed by the complainant, Rs.36,50,000/- from the
amount disbursed in Crime No.205/2023, Rs.35,00,000/- from the
amount disbursed in Crime No.162/2023, Rs.15,00,000/-, and
Rs.32,00,000/- from the amounts disbursed in Crime No. 195/2023 and
Crime No. 196/2023, respectively. The learned Public Prosecutor also
submitted that without interrogating the first accused, who is understood
to be the mastermind behind the criminal acts alleged, the investigation
will not be able to be effectively completed and therefore the grant of
anticipatory bail has effectively scuttled the scope and effectiveness of
the investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the
nature of crime indicates that the accused had conspired to cheat the
defacto complainant through a very clandestine method and had
exploited the trust generated by him.
9. Sri. C.R.Sivakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd
respondent in all these cases, on the other hand, contended that the
allegations against the first accused are fanciful and without any basis.
According to the learned Counsel, if the first accused was the
mastermind behind the alleged crime, he should have benefited
monetarily far more than what is now alleged. It was submitted that
2024:KER:70363
even going by the complainant's allegations, an amount of Rs.8.62
crores was disbursed by him, while the first accused is alleged to have
received only a paltry sum of Rs.1.26 crores, which works out to only
15% of the total amount disbursed. It was further contended that the
first accused has no criminal antecedents of any nature and he is willing
to abide by any condition apart from having already appeared before the
investigating officer more than ten times and hence, there is no
requirement for any custodial interrogation. The learned Counsel also
asserted with all vehemence at his command that the observation of the
learned Sessions Judge that the allegations reflect only a civil liability, is
not perverse warranting any interference. After referring to the
WhatsApp chats alleged to have transpired between the defacto
complainant and the first accused, the learned Counsel submitted that it
is almost impossible to decipher any criminal motive or act on the part of
the first accused.
10. I have considered the rival contentions.
11. Cancellation of bail and setting aside an erroneous order
granting bail, are two distinct concepts. The considerations that govern
the above two types of challenges are altogether different. The nature
and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused, his
antecedents, possibility of the accused fleeing from justice or repeating
the offence, and the impact of granting anticipatory bail are a few of the
2024:KER:70363
factors to be reckoned with while considering the application for
anticipatory bail.
12. In the decision in Pratibha Manchanda and Another v.
State of Haryana and Another (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Supreme Court
has observed that cancellation of bail should be done only for substantial
and compelling reasons, while setting aside an erroneous bail order, is
altogether a different proposition. Elaborating upon the aforesaid
propositions, the court observed that though the relief of anticipatory
bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights, it also serves as a crucial
tool to misuse the power of arrest and a delicate balance has to be
arrived at while balancing the individual right and the interest of justice.
The court also observed that, while the right to liberty and presumption
of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the
offence, the impact on the society and the need for a fair and free
investigation and the discretion exercised by the court by weighing these
interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes
crucial to ensure a just outcome. It has been further observed that
while ascertaining the correctness of an order granting bail, the court
can certainly verify whether the discretion was exercised in accordance
with the fundamental principles for the grant of anticipatory bail.
13. Similarly, in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar alias Deepu alias Depak and
2024:KER:70363
Another (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1059) it was observed that while
granting bail, the court must keep in mind the factors such as the nature
of accusations, severity of punishment, apprehension of witnesses being
tampered with, the frivolity of prosecution case apart from the danger of
justice being thwarted due to grant of bail. The discretion to be
exercised by the court must be judicious, cautious and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down by the courts.
14. With the above principles in mind, when the impugned
order is analysed, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge while
granting anticipatory bail to the first accused, did not consider any of the
relevant material particulars. The observation of the learned Sessions
Judge that the case only reveals advance of certain amount for business
purposes by acting on the representation that a share of profit would be
paid and if such a share of profit is not paid, it would amount only to a
civil liability is only a conclusion without reference to the nature of
allegations. The learned Sessions Judge even went to the extent of
observing that it is not clear whether the alleged acts of forgery were
committed by the first accused or the other accused and also how the
first accused could be made responsible for the transaction when the
advance was made for the business purposes of the other accused.
15. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusions, the learned
Sessions Judge failed to bear in mind the specific case of the defacto
2024:KER:70363
complainant that the accused had conspired together to induce the
defacto complainant to part with large amounts of money by showing
forged documents of credit sanctions and the circumstances brought out
during the investigation, especially those relating to the immediate
transfer of money to the first accused after its disbursement to accused
2 and 3 for their business purposes. Such transfers of a large portion of
the money disbursed to other accused, indicate, atleast prima facie that
the first accused can have a role behind the alleged crime. All these
aspects could be brought out only by custodial interrogation. The
contention of the first accused that what he had received is only a
'meagre sum' cannot be countenanced, at least at this stage, since even
that 'meagre amount' is substantial.
16. The learned Sessions Judge failed to bear in mind the
requirement of custodial interrogation in a case of this nature when the
allegations involve forgery and cheating of large amounts of money. By
a passing observation, that the allegations do not indicate the
requirement of custodial interrogation, the learned Sessions Judge failed
to properly advert to or consider the nature of allegations in the crimes
under consideration. According to me, the impugned order of the
learned Sessions Judge is perverse and has not taken into reckoning the
fundamental requirements to be borne in mind while granting
anticipatory bail especially when the amounts involved in the crime are
2024:KER:70363
substantial and a similar pattern seems to have been adopted by the
accused in all the five crimes.
17. Further, in the complaint itself, petitioner had specifically
alleged that the first and second accused had sent to him forged
statement of accounts from Oriental Bank of Commerce, forged purchase
orders, forged container quotes, forged bills of lading, forged letters of
credit of Chartered Bank, false reply letter regarding rejection of a
cardamom shipment, and even fake travelling tickets, all of which were
stated to have induced the defacto complainant to transfer large amount
of money to the accused. The above alleged forged documents coupled
with the transfer of the amounts to the first accused immediately after
such disbursement raises suspicion and those circumstances were
completely lost sight of by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned
orders. Even the allegation that the business meetings prior to the
disbursement of amounts took place at the residence of the first accused
was not considered while granting anticipatory bail to the first accused.
The said allegation requires to be probed into and if true, may even
indicate the active role of the first accused in the alleged inducement.
18. In view of the above discussion, I am satisfied that the
impugned orders granting anticipatory bail to the first accused - second
respondent in all the crimes, are perverse and are liable to be set aside.
19. Hence the orders dated 27.02.2023 granting anticipatory
2024:KER:70363
bail to the first accused in Crime No.195/2023, Crime No.206/2023,
Crime No.205/2023, Crime No.162/2023 and Crime No.196/2023 are
hereby set aside.
These criminal miscellaneous cases are allowed.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
vps
2024:KER:70363
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/FIS
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 195/2023 OF
THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY
DATED 20.01.2023
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1
Annexure A4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (SESSIONS JUDGE - IN CHARGE), THRISSUR
DATED 27.02.2023
Annexure A5 THE COMMON BAIL DISMISSAL ORDER IN B.A
NO.886/2023 & 876/2023 DATED 21.03.2023 BY
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Annexure A6 THE COMMON BAIL DISMISSAL ORDERS IN B.A NOS
5659/2023, 5668/2023, 5651/2023, 5646/2023 &
5656/2023 DATED 22.12.2023 BY THE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA.
Annexure A7 THE BAIL DISMISSAL ORDERS DATED 31.01.2024 BY
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annexure A8 THE COMMON BAIL DISMISSAL ORDER DATED
13.12.2023 BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Annexure A9 THE COMMON BAIL DISMISSAL ORDER DATED
29.01.2024 BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R2 (a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER AND THE DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE-NUMBERED
CRL MC
Annexure R2 (b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST ISSUED BY
THE POLICE DATED 10/08/2023
Annexure R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CRIME BRANCH,
THRISSUR CITY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH IS
2024:KER:70363
RECEIVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
03/11/2023
Annexure R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED COMPLAINT OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE DGP
Annexure R2(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER IN THE BOOKS OF
ACCOUNTS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure R2 F A TRUE COPY OF THE CHAT MESSAGE ALONG WITH
DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS BETWEEN THE PETITIONER
AND HIS WIFE WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure R2 G A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMPLAINT SENT BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/02/2024
Annexure R2 H THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RTI
ACT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
02/03/2024
Annexure R2 I THE REPLAY OF THE RTI APPLICATION FROM PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER CITY POLICE OFFICER
THRISSUR DATED 05/04/2024
Annexure R2 J A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01/03/2024
Annexure R2 (K) A TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE BANK
STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure R2 (L) THE TRUE COPY OF SOME OF THE RELEVANT CHAT
MESSAGES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER WITH THIS
RESPONDENT
Annexure R2 (M) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT FROM BANK
STATEMENT OF THIS RESPONDENT FROM THE.
01/01/2019 TO 28/02/2023
2024:KER:70363
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/FIS
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 206/2023 OF
THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY
DATED 21.01.2023
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1
Annexure A4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (SESSIONS JUDGE - IN CHARGE), THRISSUR
IN CRL.M.C NO. 137/2023 DATED 27.02.2023
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER AND THE DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE-NUMBERED
2024:KER:70363
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/FIS DATED
17.01.2023
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 205/2023 OF
THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY
DATED 21.01.2023
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1
Annexure A4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (SESSIONS JUDGE - IN CHARGE), THRISSUR
DATED 27.02.2023
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER AND THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE-NUMBERED
Annexure R2(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER AND THE DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER FROM 15 NOVEMBER 2022
TO 7TH DECEMBER 2022
Annexure R2(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE CHAT MESSAGE ALONG WITH
DETAILED DESCRIPTIONS BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER'S WIFE WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Anneure R2(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMPLAINT SENT BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure R2(e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RTI APPLICATION
SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED
02/03/2024
Annexure R2(f) THE REPLY TO THE RTI APPLICATION FROM THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CITY POLICE
OFFICER, THRISSUR, DATED 05/04/2024
Annexure R2(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT, DATED
01/03/2024
2024:KER:70363
Annexure R2(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT OF THE BANK
STATEMENT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Annexure R2(i) THE TRUE COPY OF SOME OF THE RELEVANT CHAT
MESSAGES BETWEEN THE PETITIONER WITH THIS
RESPONDENT
Annexure R2(j) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ABSTRACT FROM BANK
STATEMENT OF THIS RESPONDENT FROM THE.
01/01/2019 TO 28/02/2023
Annexure R2(k) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 242/2023
BEFORE HON'BLE SUB COURT ERNAKULAM FILED ON
28/11/2023
2024:KER:70363
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/FIS DATED
17.01.2023
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 162/2023 OF
THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY
DATED 18.01.2023
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1
DATED 31.01.2023
Annexure A4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT (SESSIONS JUDGE - IN CHARGE), THRISSUR
IN CRL.MC 134/2023 DATED 27.02.2023
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER AND THE DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER
2024:KER:70363
PETITIONER'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/FIS DATED
17.01.2023
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO. 196/2023 OF
THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY
DATED 20.01.2023
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY
BAIL FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1
DATED 31.01.2023
Annexure A4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2023 IN CRL.MC
136/2023 OF 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT
(SESSIONS JUDGE - IN CHARGE), THRISSUR
RESPONDENT'S/S' ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE WHATSAPP CHAT BETWEEN
THE PETITIONER AND THE DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER IN THE ABOVE-NUMBERED
