Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9369/2019 of SANEESH, Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 Bail Appl..No.9369 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 887/2019 DATED 13-12-2019 OF DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.233/2019 OF
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.9369 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 887/2019 DATED 13-12-2019 OFDISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA
CRIME NO.233/2019 OF Upputhara Police Station , Idukki PETITIONER/S:
SANEESH,AGED 30 YEARSS/O. THANKAPPAN, KAARIKKAMATTATHIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA P.O, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPISRI.GEM KORASON
RESPONDENT/S:
1STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2STATION HOUSE OFFICER,UPPUTHARA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SREEJA.V., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Dated this the 31st day of December 2019
Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.233/2019 ofUpputhara Police Station for having allegedly committedoffences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the IndianPenal Code, which was registered on the basis of a privatecomplaint filed by the de facto complainant before the JudicialFirst Class Magistrate Court, Kattappana, which wasforwarded to the Station House Officer under Section 156(3)of Cr.P.C.
Page 1 of 2
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest and hence approached the Sessions Court for an anticipatory bail, whichwas rejected vide Annexure A2 order, stating that hugeamount of transaction had taken place between the petitionerand the de facto complainant and the allegation is that the defacto complainant was cheated.
3. The dispute between the petitioner and the de factocomplainant is concerning the supply of construction Bail Appl..No.9369 OF 2019 3
materials which is evidenced by Annexure A1 agreement.The agreement allegedly took place on 12.07.2017. Thepetitioner has not been proceeded against the de factocomplainant for a fairly long time. The veracity of the termsof agreement will have to stand scrutiny. There is no otherantecedents against the petitioner. He is willing to co-operatewith the investigation. He will definitely have to beinterrogated by the police in connection with the allegationsmade against him.
4. The petitioner is therefore directed to surrenderbefore the investigating officer within a period of ten days. Incase he is arrested, he shall be released on bail on thefollowing conditions:- (a) On execution of a bond for rupees one lakh with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction ofthe investigating officer.
(b) He shall thereafter appear before the investigatingofficer as and when called and co-operate with theinvestigation.
(c) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate thewitnesses nor shall he get involved in similar offfences.
Bail Appl..No.9369 OF 2019 4
(d) In case of breach of any of the conditions, theprosecution is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail beforethe Jurisdictional Magistrate.
rmm
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE UNDATED AGREEMENT ALLEGED TO HAVE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE DE FACTO COMPLAINANT
ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 IN CRL.M.C NO.887/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…