Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 50961
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
BYJU SYMON – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./899/2022
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Applications
Act Referred
Headnote
Bail - Applications for Regular Bail - IPC Section 420 - Court interprets conditions of interim bail and evaluates the failure to settle disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused in multiple crimes under Section 420 IPC, applied for regular bail after being in custody for 90 days and previously granted interim bail with conditions on settlement with the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court recognized that despite the petitioner not fully settling the matters as originally undertaken, the interim bail conditions were previously acknowledged and deemed sufficient to make the bail absolute.
Issues: Whether the failure to settle the monetary dispute affects the decision to grant regular bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that as interim bail had been granted previously considering specific conditions, those conditions allow for the bail to be made absolute despite the non-settlement of some disputes.
Final Decision: Regular bail applications are granted and made absolute.
M.KIRANLAL, R.RAJESH (VARKALA), MANU RAMACHANDRAN, T.S.SARATH, SAMEER M NAIR, GEETHU KRISHNAN, HARSHA SUSAN SAM
ORDER
Applications for regular bail.
2. Petitioner is the accused in B.A.No.103 of
2022 Crime No.872 of 2021 of Mannar Police station, B.A.No.506 of 2022 Crime No.8/2022 of Pulikkeezhu Police Station, B.A.No.516 of 2022 Crime No.16/2022 of Pooyappally Police Station, B.A.No.894 of 2022 Crime No.40 of 2022 of Edathua Police Station, B.A.No.899 of 2022 Crime No.39 of 2022 of Edathua Police Station and B.A.No.1433 of 2022 Crime No.197 of 2022 of Thiruvalla Police Station registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC .
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was in custody from 30.12.2021 till he was released on interim bail by this Court on 14.3.2022. It is seen that interim bail was granted by this Court on a specific undertaking that the monitory dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioner in all these cases are settled, but I am told that the petitioner has not settled the matter with the defacto complainant as undertaken by this Court. The petitioner submits that he has taken all earnest effort to settle the matter. It is further submitted by the petitioner that he could not settle any of the matters as undertaken, despite his earnest efforts, except in B.A.No.516 of 2022, which is already settled.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that the charge sheet is already laid in all these matters and that the petitioner is in custody for 90 days prior to the grant of interim bail.
It is submitted on both sides that the the interim order was granted imposing conditions and taking note of the said fact, I dispose of all the applications making the interim bail granted in all these cases absolute.
