Kerala High Court
Vijumon P.V vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:50982
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 7905 OF 2025
CRIME NO.215/2025 OF VELLOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3:
1 VIJUMON P.V.
AGED 46 YEARS
SON OF VIDHYADHARAN, PALLATTUKUZHHIYIL HOUSE,
ERUMPANAM P.O., VELLOOR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686605.
2 SANJEEV P.T.
AGED 50 YEARS
PUTHUPARAMBIL, PERUVA P.O., MULAKKULAM, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 686610.
3 ASHOKAN
AGED 49 YEARS
OLAMADATHIL, KARIKKODU P.O., PERUVA, MULAKKULAM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686610.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
SHRI.IRFAN ZIRAJ
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VELLOOR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686605.
SRI. NOUSHAD K. A. (PP)
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:50982
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A.No.7905 of 2025
...............................................
Dated this the 10th day of July, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioners are accused nos. 1 to 3 in Crime No.215/2025
of Velloor Police Station, Kottayam, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 336(3), 340(1) of the
Bharatia Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS in short).
3. According to the prosecution, the accused together with an
intention to cheat the defacto complainant agreed to sell the property
of first petitioner for a sum of Rs.75,000/-, and executed an
agreement, but on enquiry it was understood that the first petitioner
was not the owner of property, and thereby the accused cheated the de
facto complainant and committed the offences alleged.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
petitioners have been falsely arrayed as accused and that they have no
involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025
2025:KER:50982
7. The first petitioner's father, though had a large extent of
property, he had sold all those properties except 1.53 ares, apart from
certain properties over which he had possessory rights including all
those properties, he executed a settlement deed in favour of his son,
the first petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner executed an agreement
for sale with the defacto complainant proposing to sell 22.68 ares of
property in survey no.703/3 of Keezhur Village, knowing fully well that
he had title over only 1.53 ares. The record of rights clearly indicates
that the petitioner was in ownership of only 1.53 ares and despite such
knowledge a large amount of money was collected under an agreement
for sale.
8. The above allegations prima facie indicate that the
petitioner had attempted to defraud the defacto complainant. However,
since most of these allegations are covered by documentary proof, I am
of the view that the circumstances do not require custodial
interrogation, but for the purpose of completing the investigation,
petitioners must be subjected themselves to interrogation under a
limited custody.
9. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of
Delhi) and Another, [2020 (5) SCC 1], it was held that while
considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to
be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of
the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the
B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025
2025:KER:50982
case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of
conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on
facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
10. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in the
case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are serious in
nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required. Since
the allegations are covered by documents, I am of the view that their
bail application can be allowed on conditions.
11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the following
conditions:
(a) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer
on 17.07.2025, and shall subject themselves to interrogation,
which period shall be treated as limited custody for the
purpose of completing the investigation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes
to arrest the petitioners, then, they shall be released on bail
on them executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty
thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the
like sum before the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when required and shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
(d) Petitioners shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall they tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioners shall not commit any similar offences while
they are on bail.
(f) Petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of
the Court having jurisdiction.
B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025
2025:KER:50982
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for
cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the
law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
mea
B.A. NO. 7905 OF 2025
2025:KER:50982
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 7905/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN
CRIME NUMBER 215 OF 2025 OF VELLOOR POLICE
STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
Annexure 2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED
29/6/2018 EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF FIRST
PETITIONER IN FAVOR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER
WHICH WAS REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 920
OF 2018 OF VAIKOM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
Annexure 3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.4.2025
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKULAM
VILLAGE TO THE FIRST PETITIONER
Annexure 4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKULAM
VILLAGE DATED 5.3.2018 TO THE FIRST
PETITIONER
Annexure 5 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN
THE FIRST PETITIONER AND DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT DATED 25/5/2022
Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND AGREEMENT DATED
18/7/2023 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE DE FACTO
COMPLAINANT AND FIRST PETITIONER
Annexure 7 TRUE COPY OF THE THIRD AGREEMENT DATED
16/1/2024 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE FIRST
PETITIONER AND THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE
COURT DATED 22.06.2023 IN WP(C)
Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
DE FACTO COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, VELLOOR POLICE STATION
Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAKULAM
Annexure 11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SHO
OF VELLOOR POLICE STATION IN CONNECTION WITH
THE SUBJECT MATTER
