Joy Thomas @ Thomas Philip vs The State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2017

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Joy Thomas @ Thomas Philip vs The State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2017

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                   PRESENT:

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

       TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAYOF DECEMBER 2017/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

                                        Bail Appl..No. 6603 of 2017
                                      ------------------------------------------

                 CRIME NO. 1941/2017 OF CHINGAVANAM POLICE STATION
                                                   ----------------


PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 2 :
--------------------------------------------

                     JOY THOMAS @ THOMAS PHILIP,
                     AGED 67, S/O. K.P.THOMAS, MALAYATTIKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
                     THIRUVANCHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM.


                     BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL
                                    SRI.S.NIDHEESH


RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------

                     THE STATE OF KERALA,
                     REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                     HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.


                     BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI


           THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
           ON 05-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
           FOLLOWING:


Msd.



                  RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
             = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                       B.A. No. 6603 of 2017
              = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
             Dated this the 5th day of December, 2017

                              ORDER

1.The petitioner, who is arrayed as the second accused in Crime No.1941/2017 of Chingavanam Police Station, is before this Court seeking pre-arrest bail. He is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2.The prosecution allegation is that the third accused in the crime was a near relative of the petitioner herein. The petitioner is running an Old Age Home and other institutions. The allegation is that the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to cheat the de facto complainant, induced him to believe that he would be provided with a job abroad on a monthly salary of Rs.50,000/- and received a sum of Rs.63,000/- on various occasions. This according to the prosecution was nothing but a clear case of fraud as the complainant ended up losing his money with no signs of the assured job.

BA.6603/17 -:2:-

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a 67 year old man, who is suffering from prostate cancer. He was working abroad for the past 40 years and had returned to India only recently. He had placed an advertisement in the newspaper seeking for a maid to tend to his aged mother. The accused No.1 applied and she was appointed. Later, the 3rd accused called him up seeing the advertisement and offered to provide jobs in his catering establishment. The petitioner informed this fact to his newly appointed maid, who in turn conveyed this news to several others. According to the petitioner, he has absolutely no hand in the transactions entered into between the accused Nos. 1 and 3 and the de facto complainant.

4.The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer. He has made available the case diary for perusal. On going through the case diary, it appears that the complainant has no case that the petitioner had any role in the transaction between him and the other accused. It is also seen that the petitioner is not a person with criminal antecedents. BA.6603/17 -:3:-

5.After considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction would entail, the character and antecedents of the petitioner, the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from justice and other facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner, subject to conditions.

In the result, this application will stand allowed, subject to the following conditions:

i). It is directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner herein in connection with Crime No.1941/2017 of Chingavanam Police Station, he shall be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest.

ii).The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

BA.6603/17 -:4:-

iv). The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

v) If the petitioner surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge krj.5/12 //true copy// P.A To Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court