Kerala High Court
Lalu Lijo vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 2019
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 5826 of 2018
CRIME NO. 544/2018 OF OONNUKAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONERS/NO PARTIES:
1 LALU LIJO, AGED 22 YEARS, S/I.LIJO, MANAMKUZHY(H),
PANIYELI KARA, PANIYELI P. O , KUNNATHUNADU TALUK
2 NITHIN M.D., AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY,
MALLISSERY (H), OKKAL P.O., CHELAMATTOM,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.
BY ADVS.
AJEESH M UMMER
SMT.SIKHA G.NAIR
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA, (SHO OONUKAL POLICE STATION)
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN- 682031
2 * ADDL.R2
AJEESH VIJAYAN, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 33 YEARS,
AMBATTUVITTIL HOUSE, ELLICKAL P.O.,
BISONVALLEY VILLAGE, UDUMBUMCHOLA TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT
*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.09.2018
IN CRL.M.A.NO.01/18 IN BA.NO.5826/18.
R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AJITH MURALI
R2 SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.02.2019,
ALONG WITH Bail Appl..6074/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 5826 of 2018 &
Bail Appl..No. 6074 of 2018
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 6074 of 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC 1522/2018 of SESSIONS COURT,
ERNAKULAM
CRIME NO. 544/2018 OF OONNUKAL POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:
JOHNSON VARGHESE, AGED 43 YEARS
S/O P.D VARGHESE, PYNADATH HOUSE, EDAKUNNU,
PATHUVAPURAM P.O., KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.
2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
OONNUKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3 * ADDL.R3
AJEESH VIJAYAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O VIJAYAN,
AMBATTUVITTIL HOUSE, ELLICKAL P.O., BISONVALLEY
VILLAGE, UDUMBUMCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
*(ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26/11/2018
IN CRL.MA.01/2018 IN BA.NO.6074/2018)
R1 & R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AJITH MURALI
R3 SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.02.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5826/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 5826 of 2018 &
Bail Appl..No. 6074 of 2018
3
COMMONORDER
[ Bail Appl. 5826/2018 & Bail Appl..6074/2018 ] The petitioners are accused Nos.2, 3 and 1, respectively in Crime No.544 of 2018 of Oonnukal Police Station, Ernakulam District, for offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 324 and 394 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Accused No.1 is the owner of the two commercial vehicles. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 15.02.2018, by which both the vehicles were agreed to be sold to one Ajeesh Vijayan, who is the defacto complainant. According to the first accused, there was a stipulation that the hypothication loan would be repaid by Ajeesh Vijayan. Since he allegedly committed default, an agreement dated 21.07.2018 for termination was entered into between the parties. Accordingly, accused allegedly repossessed the vehicle.
Bail Appl..No. 5826 of 2018 & Bail Appl..No. 6074 of 2018 4
3. On the other hand, the contention of the Ajeesh Vijayan, who laid the FIS through his driver, the vehicle was under his possession and control. While the vehicle was being driven by the defacto complainant, first accused took forceful possession of the vehicle. It is contended that Ajeesh Vijayan lost the vehicle and the money also. Arraying the above persons as accused, crime was registered.
4. The investigation has revealed that Ajeesh Vijayan and the first accused were conducting a partnership business. Subsequently, the partnership business was brought to an end and profit and loss accounted among the partners. It seems that Ajeesh Vijayan has a specific case that agreement dated 21.07.2018 by which the earlier agreement was terminated is a false document and his signature is forged therein.
5. It seems that lot of transactions have been entered into between the parties. It is an admitted fact of the first accused that there was an agreement for sale in Bail Appl..No. 5826 of 2018 & Bail Appl..No. 6074 of 2018 5 favour of Ajeesh Vijayan, that possession was handed over to him and that he has later taken possession of the vehicles. However, in the light of the several transactions which are either suppressed or not fully disclosed, I feel that this is not a fit case for granting the benefit of pre- arrest bail. Bail applications fail and are dismissed.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE R.AV //True Copy// PA to Judge