SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41134

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ASHOK MENON, J
DHARMENDRA R – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Bail Appl./8691/2020



Advocates:
SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL, SRI.SANTHOSH PETER

Bail is preferable over custody in non-serious cases, especially where the issues are primarily civil; anticipatory bail can be granted unless substantial grounds suggest otherwise.

Headnote:

Bail - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C - Court applies principles of bail, emphasizing the civil nature of disputes and lack of criminal antecedents; denies bail on insufficient grounds of forgery.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, involved in two separate criminal cases related to alleged cheating and forgery over a dredger sale, filed for anticipatory bail. Disputes are primarily civil regarding outstanding payments.

Finding of the Court:

The court emphasized that the criminal nature of the allegations did not warrant bail since the disputes stem from civil matters and no substantial evidence of criminality was presented. The applicant was not a flight risk.

Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given the nature of the allegations and the civil background of the disputes.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail should generally be granted unless there are compelling reasons such as risk of flight, tampering evidence, or serious offenses, none of which were present in this case.

Final Decision: The applications for anticipatory bail are granted with conditions.

COMMON ORDER

[ Bail Appl..5811/2020, Bail Appl..8691/2020 ]

Dated this the 22nd day of April 2021 Applications are filed by the same person for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. The applicant is the 4th accused in Crime No.

1570/2019 of Ernakulam Central Police Station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C for which he has filed BA No. 5811/2020. He is also the 1st accused in Crime No. 1608/2020 of the same Police station for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 177, 182, 199, 209, 211, 466 and 471 read with Section 120 B of the I.P.C for which he has filed BA No. 8691/2020.

3. Southern Dredging Company Private Ltd, the de facto complainant herein, represented by the 2nd respondent, had sold dredger costing about ₹3.75 crores to JAT Holdings in Sri Lanka on 20/08/2018. Towards the sale consideration, ₹1.75 crores is still due. According to the de facto complainant, the applicant and the rest of the accused had allegedly forged the invoice dated 05/04/2018 showing sale of another dredger to JAT Holdings. Thus the accused, including the applicant, had allegedly cheated the de facto complainant of ₹1.75 crores. It is on the basis of this complaint that Crime No.1570 of 2019 was registered.

4. The facts in crime No.1608 of 2020 is that the applicant had hatched a conspiracy with the rest of the accused and filed a false complaint against the de facto complainant before the Enforcement Directorate levelling serious charges of fraud. While B. A. No. 5811/2020 was pending before this Court, the de facto complainant approached The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ernakulam by filing a private complaint which was forwarded by the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C in consequence of which the 2nd crime was registered. The 1st accused had filed a complaint before the Governor of Kerala seeking a proper investigation in Crime No.1570 of 2019 and the investigation has been transferred to the Crime Branch, Central Unit, Thrippunithura and has been renumbered.

5. The applicant is an employee of JA paints private Ltd., an associate company of the 1st accused M/s. JAT Holdings working in India and is posted in Bangalore. As per the terms of the agreement, the substantive parts of the dredger and its standard accessories were to be shipped in two shipments for an amount of USD 3,24,000/- and on arrival of the first 2 shipments, the balance amount of USD 3 lakhs needs to be paid within 180 days from the date of the 1st shipment and also after the dredger gets installed and commissioned successfully. The substantial part of the dredger was exported to Sri Lanka on 20/08/2018 and the 1st accused company paid a sum of USD 3,24,000/- as agreed. However the accessories in connection with the dredger which was supposed to come in another shipment did not reach as agreed. The 1st accused company has through its associate company M/s. JAT Agri Private Ltd instituted a civil suit against the de facto complainant in Colombo which is pending consideration. It is submitted that the dispute between the applicant and the de facto complainant is purely civil in nature and the de facto complainant has colluded with certain Police officials to institute criminal cases against the applicant and the other accused. The 3rd accused had filed the bail application before this Court as BA 577 of 2020 which was allowed by this Court vide annexure-7. The applicant therefore prays that he too may be granted anticipatory bail. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation.

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in both the applications and the learned Public Prosecutor. The de facto complainant, as a party in person, made submissions opposing the granting of anticipatory bail pointing out that the applicant is involved in a crime of very serious nature and has to be confined in judicial custody for the purpose of conducting tria

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top