Dinamani vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 26 March, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Dinamani vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 26 March, 2019

Bench: B.Sudheendra Kumar

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

  TUESDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941

                   Bail Appl..No. 4532 of 2018

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1543/2018 of       SESSIONS
                      COURT, PALAKKAD

  CRIME NO. 130/2018 OF Nattukal Police Station , Palakkad

PETITIONER/S:

              DINAMANI
              AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, HOUSE NO.
              58, 1ST FLOOR, 3RD CROSS STREET, PATTYAL LAY
              OUT, VISWAPRIYA NAGAR, BEEGAM MAIN ROAD,
              BANGALORE.

              BY ADV. SRI.V.A.VINOD

RESPONDENT/S:
      1     SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            NATTUKAL POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 554.

      2       STATE OF KERALA
              REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
              KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

      3       ADDL.R3 SIVAKUMAR
              AGED 57 YEARS
              S/O BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SARANG
              HOUSE, THACHANATTUKARA, KUNDURKUNNU, PALAKKAD
              DISTRICT-678583. (ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER
              ORDER DATED 16/01/2019 IN CRL.MA.01/2018)

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
            SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS
OTHER PRESENT:
            SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP


THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Bail Appl..No. 4532 of 2018

                              -2-




                          ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 130 of 2018 of Nattukal Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

2. The prosecution allegation is that on 15-02-2016, the petitioner collected an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from the de facto complainant on the assurance that he would arrange a medical seat for the daughter of the de facto complainant in some medical College in Bangalore. However, the seat as promised was not arranged. The amount was also not re-paid.

3. The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Bail Appl..No. 4532 of 2018 -3-

4. Heard.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other offence of similar nature.

6. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent has submitted that the petitioner is a close relative of the 3 rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted the receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/- by the petitioner from the 3rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner spent some amount for securing admission for the daughter of the 3rd respondent. However, the daughter of the 3 rd respondent got admission in some other medical college in Tamil Nadu and hence she could not join the medical college where advance amount was paid by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the petitioner will not be able to repay the amount spent by the petitioner as mentioned above as advance. The learned counsel for the petitioner Bail Appl..No. 4532 of 2018 -4- has submitted that the petitioner is prepared to re-pay the balance amount to the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner is not an agent. It appears that it was only because of the relationship between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent that the petitioner agreed to arrange medical seat for the daughter of the 3rd respondent.

7. The money was transferred from the account of the 3rd respondent to the account of the petitioner through Bank. Therefore, documents are available to show the receipt of the amount by the petitioner. It appears that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. That apart, there is no criminal antecedent against the petitioner. In view of the above reasons, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary in this case. Therefore, an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner will be justified in this case.

Bail Appl..No. 4532 of 2018 -5-

In the result, this bail application stands allowed, and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the Crime No. 130 of 2018 of Nattukal Police Station, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the first respondent, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within 10 days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the investigating officer for interrogation.

(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way Bail Appl..No. 4532 of 2018 -6- tamper with the investigation.

(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any offence during the pendency of this case.

Dated this the 26th day of March, 2019.

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge.

ani/ /true copy/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court