Kerala High Court
Sesil Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 14 September, 2020
Author: Ashok Menon
Bench: Ashok Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.4299 OF 2020
CRIME NO.668/2020 OF Wadakkancherry Police Station , Palakkad
PETITIONER/A2:
SESIL JOSEPH
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O. K.V.JOSEPH, KANDODO HOUSE, VEETTIKKAL P.O.,
MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682314
682314
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WADAKKENCHERY
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
682031
2 SHAJON.K.R.,
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. RAPPAI, KOKKADAN HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA, THRISSUR,
PIN-680 302
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C N PRABHAKARAN SR PP ,
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..4302/2020, Bail
Appl..4906/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA,
1942
Bail Appl..No.4302 OF 2020
CRIME NO.668/2020 OF Wadakkancherry Police Station ,
Palakkad
PETITIONER/A3:
HILDA SESIL, AGED 46 YEARS
W/O. SESIL JOSEPH, KANDODI HOUSE, VEETTIKKAL
P.O. MULAMTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM 682 314.
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENT/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERRY
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNKULAM 682
031.
2 SHOJAN.K. R.
S/O. RAPPAI, KOKKADAN HOUSE, MANNAMPETTA,
THRISSUR 680 302.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH
R1 BY SRI.C N PRABHAKARAN SR PP ,
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.09.2020, ALONG WITH BA Nos.4299/2020 AND 4906/2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 23RD BHADRA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.4906 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1568/2020 DATED 03-08-
2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD
CRIME NO.668/2020 OF Wadakkancherry Police Station ,
Palakkad
PETITIONER/A1:
SHIJU ANDREWS, AGED 50 YEARS
KALATHIL HOUSE, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL NAGAR,
VADAKKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678683.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH
SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS
SHRI. RALPH RETI JOHN
RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682031
*ADDL.R2 SHOJAN K R, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O RAPPAYI, KOKKADAN VEEDU,MANNAMPETTA
VATTANTHARA P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680302
*ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R2 AS PER ORDER DATED
19/8/2020 IN CRL MA 1/2020
R1 R1 BY SRI.C N PRABHAKARAN SR PP ,
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP
R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PRIJITH
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2020, ALONG WITH BA Nos.4299/2020 and 4302/2020,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020
4
O R D E R
[ Bail Appl..4299/2020, Bail Appl..4302/2020 and Bail Appl..4906/2020 ] Dated this the 14th day of September 2020 These are applications seeking anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.PC.
The applicant in BA No.4906/2020 is the first accused, while the applicants in BA Nos.4299/2020 and 4302/2020 are accused 2 and 3, respectively, in Crime No.668/2020 of Wadakkancherry Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 7 of the Kerala Money Lenders' Act, 1958 and under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 and under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The applicants apprehend arrest and hence seek anticipatory bail in the BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020 5 aforesaid Crime. The first accused had already filed an application before the Sessions Court as Crl.MC No.1568/2020 under Section 438 Cr.PC. But the same was dismissed vide order at Annexure-1. Hence, he has approached this Court for indulgence. Accused 2 and 3, who are husband and wife, have approached this Court directly seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Senior Counsel Sri.S.Sreekumar appearing for the defacto complainant, who has been impleaded in all the three bail applications. The learned Public Prosecutor also was heard.
3. Accused 2 and 3 and the defacto complainant had entered into an agreement for sale of 17 acres of properties BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020 6 in Chinnakkanal Village worth crores of rupees. The defacto complainant paid some amount, that was available with him, and the rest of the amount, i.e. Rs.1,41,20,000/-, was allegedly borrowed from the first accused, who is a licenced money lender and the amount was handed over to accused Nos.2 and 3 and the sale deed was executed.
4. The defacto complaint contends that he has repaid the entire amount due to the first accused with exorbitant interest. However, the blank signed papers, blank signed white papers, blank signed cheques and other documents handed over to the first accused as security for the loan were not returned to him, despite the loan being completely repaid. In collusion, the first accused handed over two blank signed cheques to accused 2 and 3 and they BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020 7 filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for realisation of the amounts due as per the cheques, which were dishonoured on being presented for collection before the Bank. The defacto complainant would contend that there were no amounts due to accused 2 and 3 on account of the sale consideration and that is the reason why they have executed sale deed, and therefore, the contention in the complaint filed under the NI Act that amounts were due from the defacto complainant cannot be believed. It is further stated that the first accused has not claimed the amount due from the defacto complainant towards the loan. This would indicate that the applicants were glove in hand in proceeding against the defacto complainant. It is under such circumstances that the BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020 8 defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police in consequence of which, a search was also conducted in the office of the first accused and his computer and hard disk were seized. But, the other documents which have been detailed in the objections filed by the defacto complainant could not be recovered. The first accused denies of having received any such documents as mentioned in the objection filed by the defacto complainant.
5. The learned Prosecutor and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defacto complainant submit that the applicants will have to be subjected to custodial interrogation for the purpose of recovery of the other documents which have been handed over to the first accused. No search has so far been conducted in the BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020 9 premises of accused 2 and 3. Notice has not been issued to the first accused to produce documents.
6. After having heard both sides and perused the records available, I find that the first accused is not implicated in any other case for having violated any law pertaining to money lending, except the complaints filed by the defacto complainant herein. There is no dispute that the defacto complainant had a money transaction with the first accused. The dispute is regarding discharge of debt and if the contention continues, it will ultimately have to be settled by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
7. The allegations regarding charging of exorbitant interest and cheating will have to be determined in this Crime. However, the fact regarding collusion between the BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020 10 three accused and handing over the cheques entrusted to the first accused to accused 2 and 3 for being used for the purpose of filing a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, also will have to be enquired into. But, I am of the opinion that any arrest or custodial interrogation of the accused, husband and wife, may be required for this purpose. There is no reason to believe that they will not cooperate with the investigation or abscond. Under the circumstances, I find that they can be granted anticipatory bail, but on stringent conditions.
8. In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and recoveries, if any, in the event of their being arrested, BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020 11 they shall be released on bail on execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions:
(i) They shall appear before the investigating officer on all alternate Mondays between 9 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of three months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier, for the purpose of interrogation, and shall cooperate with the investigation.
(ii) They shall surrender their passports before the investigating officer, which shall be produced before the jurisdictional court. And if they do not have passports, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed before the jurisdictional Court. They shall not go abroad without seeking permission BA 4299, 4302 & 4906/2020 12 of the jurisdictional court.
(iii) They shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate or influence the witnesses.
(iv) They shall not get involved in any similar offence during the currency of the bail.
In case of breach of any of the above bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation of the bail.
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON JUDGE jg