High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2017-07-05Anticipatory Bail Application allowed; bail gra...

Chandrakumar v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BA No.3608/2017

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Sunil Thomas
Judgment Date: 2017-07-05
Court Decision / Holding: Anticipatory Bail Application allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail with conditions: (i) appearance before IO within ten days and bond of Rs.40,000 with two sureties; (ii) not threaten or intimidate witnesses; (iii) cooperate with investigation; (iv) not involve in other offences; (vi) surrender passport within one week; (vii) not enter Thrissur Session Division for two months except for compliance or court appearance. The petition under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act is not considered; surrender before jurisdictional court and possible bail thereunder may be considered, guided by Shanu v. State of Kerala and Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra, on the same day.
Final Disposition: Anticipatory Bail Application allowed; bail granted with specified conditions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chandrakumar

Respondents

State of Kerala
Station House Officer, Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Rajeev
• K.K. DheerendraKishnan
• V. Vinay
• D. Feroze

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S. Sajju (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This High Court of Kerala bail petition concerns Chandrakumar, the first accused in Crime No.225/2015 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, charged under sections 420 read with 34 IPC. The petition seeks anticipatory bail (BA No.3608/2017). The prosecution alleges the accused promised to arrange a loan from a bank through the Kerala Artisans Development Corporation, and that money and liability were purportedly induced by his contract, though sanction of the loan was not ultimately granted. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused’s role was limited to facilitating the loan and that the decision to sanction rests with the bank’s qualification and entitlement; thus custodial interrogation may not be essential. The respondent’s counsel contends that even without sanction, the accused claimed interest and sums due, and the documents cannot be construed in his favour. The Court notes that receipt of money is not disputed and that the core issues hinge on surrounding circumstances to be proved by evidence. It grants anticipatory bail with conditions: the petitioner must appear before the investigating officer within ten days and be released on a bond of Rs.40,000 with two sureties; shall not threaten witnesses; shall cooperate with the investigation; shall not involve in other offences; surrender of passport within one week; and shall not enter the Thrissur Session Division for two months except for compliance. The bench also addresses Section 18 of the SC/ST Act, indicating it is not inclined to consider bail thereunder, with surrender and possible bail in the jurisdictional court guided by Shanu v. State of Kerala and Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 420 IPCSection 34 IPCSection 498 IPCSection 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the petitioner contends that sanctioning of the loan is not within the accused’s domain and he can only facilitate the loan to be sanctioned; thus custodial interrogation is not essential. The accused’s role is limited to assisting in obtaining a loan; the decision rests with the bank’s entitlement.

Contentions of Respondents

The defacto complainant’s counsel argues that even though loan sanctioning did not occur, the accused claimed interest and amounts due under the contract; the documents cannot be construed in his favour; the surrounding circumstances require proof by evidence.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Shanu v. State of Kerala	2000 (3) KLT 452	Positive	Cited as a controlling authority for bail-related considerations on the same day and to inform the approach to anticipatory bail in similar circumstances.
Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra	2014 (2) KLT 809 SC	Positive	Cited in the context of bail under the SC/ST Act to guide on same-day consideration and appropriate approach to bail proceedings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Chandrakumar v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017/14TH ASHADHA, 1939** **Bail Appl..No. 3608 of 2017 () -------------------------------** ## **CRIME NO.225/2015 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.** **..........** ## **PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:** **------------------------** **CHANDRAKUMAR, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, TC-22/329, IRANIMUTTOM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE** ## **RESPONDENTS/STATE:** **------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 (CRIME NO.225/2015 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT)** **2. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023, (CRIME NO.225/2015 OF FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT).** ## **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.SAJJU** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **mbr/** ## **SUNIL THOMAS, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **B.A.No.3608 of 2017** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 2017 ## **O R D E R** The petitioner herein is the first accused in Crime No.225/2015 of Fort Police Station,Thiruvananthapuram for offences punishable under sections 420 read with section 34 IPC. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that, the petitioner had promised to arrange a loan from the local branch of a bank. He claimed to be associated with Kerala Artisans Development Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail contending that, sanctioning of the loan is not within his domain and it depends upon the qualification and the entitlement of the applicant. The petitioner can only facilitate to get the loan to be sanctioned. 4. Countering this, learned counsel for the defacto complainant, contended that, though loan was not sanctioned, the petitioner claimed interest as well as the amount payable due as per the contract. Hence, it was contended that, documents cannot be construed as in his favour. 5. Considering the fact that the receipt of money is not in dispute, I feel that the entire question now revolves around the attending circumstances to be proved by the evidence on record. BA No.3608/2017 2 Custodial interrogation does not appear to be essential. Hence, the petitioner is granted the benefit of pre arrest bail on the following conditions: (i). Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each. (ii). He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or witnesses. (iii). He shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation. iv). He shall not get involved in any other offence. Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. ## **Sd/-** **SUNIL THOMAS Judge** dpk /true copy/ PS to Judge BA No.3608/2017 3 **vi).** He shall surrender his passport within one week from the execution of the bond and if he is not in possession of the passport, file an affidavit to that effect. Further direction regarding release of it can be considered by the jurisdictional court **.** vii). He shall not enter the Session Division of Thrissur for two months except for compliance of the above conditions or for appearance in a court of law. ## **Investigating officer** ## **Jurisdictional Magistrate (BA No.3567)** However, the petitioner herein may surrender before the jurisdictional magistrate within ten days from today. If he surrenders and files an application for bail, it may be taken up and considered by the learned Magistrate on the same day of his appearance, having regard to the fact that the offence is only one under section 498 IPC and the purpose of warrant will be served by appearance of the petitioner herein. The bail application is disposed of. ## **Section 18 of the SC & ST Act** . ( BA No.504/2016) In the light of bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I am not inclined to consider the bail application. However, the petitioner may surrender before the jurisdictional court and in the event of filing an application for bail, that may be considered by that court having regard to the decisions reported in **Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452)** . and **Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014 (2) KLT 809 SC)** , on the same day itself. BA No.3608/2017 4 ## **SUNIL THOMAS, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **B.A.No. of 2017** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 2017 ## **O R D E R** The petitioners Crime No. for offences punishable under sections 2. Regl.Bail (i). The petitioner/petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 0,000/- (Rupees thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. ii).They/ He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Wednesdays between 9 am and 10 am for two months from the date of execution of bond. Iii). They/He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation. iv). They/He shall not get involved in any other identical BA No.3608/2017 5 offences. The bail application is allowed. Ant.Bail; (i). Petitioners/petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter if they are/he is proposed to be arrested, they/he shall be released on bail on/ each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of Rs.(Rupees thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each. (ii). They/He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or witnesses. iii). They/He shall appear before the Investigating officer on all Tues..between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for a period of two months from the date of release. (iii). They/He shall appear before the Investigating officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation. iv).They/ He shall not get involved in any other identical offence, Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. **SUNIL THOMAS Judge** dpk BA No.3608/2017 6 **vi).** He shall surrender his passport within one week from the execution of the bond and if he is not in possession of the passport, file an affidavit to that effect. Further direction regarding release of it can be considered by the jurisdictional court **.** vii). He shall not enter the Session Division of Thrissur for two months except for compliance of the above conditions or for appearance in a court of law. ## **Investigating officer** ## **Jurisdictional Magistrate (BA No.3567)** However, the petitioner herein may surrender before the jurisdictional magistrate within ten days from today. If he surrenders and files an application for bail, it may be taken up and considered by the learned Magistrate on the same day of his appearance, having regard to the fact that the offence is only one under section 498 IPC and the purpose of warrant will be served by appearance of the petitioner herein. The bail application is disposed of. ## **Section 18 of the SC & ST Act** . ( BA No.504/2016) In the light of bar under Section 18 of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, I am not inclined to consider the bail application. However, the petitioner may surrender before the jurisdictional court and in the event of filing an application for bail, that may be considered by that court having regard to BA No.3608/2017 7 the decisions reported in **Shanu v. State of Kerala (2000 (3) KLT 452)** . and **Sundeep Kumar Bafna v. State of Maharashtra (2014 (2) KLT 809 SC)** , on the same day itself.