Allowed

Najeemudin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2010Bail Appl./1665/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application concerning offences including robbery, kidnapping, and murder arising from hawala transactions, the High Court of Kerala granted bail to the petitioner, an accused person, on stringent conditions due to lack of specific allegation against him regarding abduction.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail on executing a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to rigorous conditions including weekly reporting, surrendering passport, and refraining from t

Najeemudin Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1665 of 2010

¶6

CRIME NO.976 OF 2009 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD

¶7

PETITIONER-11TH ACCUSED ------------------------------------------NAJEEMUDIN, SON OF MUHAMMED HAJI, AGED 30 YEARS, SHEREEFA MANZIL, THALANKRA, WEST HILL, KASARAGOD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER

¶9

RESPONDENT: STATE

¶10

-------------------STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.

¶11

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶14

B.A. NOS. 1665 OF 2010

¶15

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2010

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner is accused No.11 in Crime No.976 of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station.

¶18

The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 143, 147, 148, 459, 354, 323, 324, 120 B, 212, 364A and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶19

The prosecution case, in a nut shell, is the following: Faizal Patel, brother of accused Nos.1 and 2, who operates his dealings from Middle East, is indulged in hawala money transactions in India. A sum of Rs.16,30,000/- was given by Faizal Patel to one Rafeeq, for the purpose of giving the same to Ahammed. Ahammed was directed to distribute the money to several hawala customers. Rafeeq handed over the amount to Ahammed. Ahammed alleged that on 5-11-2009, certain persons robbed the amount from him. However, the matter was not reported to the police, evidently since

¶20

B.A. No.1665 OF 2010

¶21

:: 2 ::

¶22

the transaction was a hawala money transaction. Ahammad reported the matter to Faizal Patel. Faizal Patel made his own enquiries. He arrived at the conclusion that Ahammed was not stating the truth. Ahammed was apprehended by Faizal Patel’s people. Ahammed was directed to pay the amount to Faizal Patel. Ahammed expressed his inability to pay the amount. Another suggestion was made to Ahammed to compensate Faizal Patel by assigning immovable property. On 20-11-2009, immovable property belonging to the father in law of Ahammed was assigned to Najeemudin (Petitioner in B.A. No.1083 of 2010), who is none other than the husband of Faizal Patel’s wife’s sister.

¶23

The prosecution alleges that on further enquiry by Faizal Patel and his men, it was revealed that the amount of Rs.16,30,000/was robbed from Ahammed by one Dawood, with the help of Rafeeq. Since Faizal Patel was convinced that Ahammed was innocent in the deal, the immovable property transferred in the name of Najeemudin was re-transferred to the father in law of Ahammed. On 30-12-2009, accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the brothers of Faizal Patel, with the help of their associates, totalling fifteen in number, abducted Dawood

¶24

B.A. No.1665 OF 2010

¶25

:: 3 ::

¶26

from his house, in a Maruti Swift car bearing registration No. KL 14 H 7000. They also attacked the brother and sister in law of Dawood. At about 6.30 P.M. on 30-12-2009, three persons brought the dead body of Dawood to Century Hospital, Kasaragod. The case of the prosecution is that Dawood was brutally manhandled and murdered by the accused persons.

¶27

The petitioner was arrested on 6-1-2010 and he was remanded to judicial custody.

¶28

The petitioner filed B.A.Nos.413 of 2010 and 1083 of 2010 before this Court, which were dismissed by the orders dated 3.2.2010 and 8.3.2010.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution has no case that the petitioner has any role in the actual abduction of Dawood or in manhandling him at any point of time. The counsel submitted that at best, it could be stated that the petitioner is also involved in the hawala transactions and also in the events which led to the execution of a registered document in favour

¶30

B.A. No.1665 OF 2010

¶31

:: 4 ::

¶32

of the petitioner and giving that property back to the father-in-law of Ahammed.

¶33

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and also the circumstance that, according to the prosecution, there is no allegation that the petitioner is involved in the actual abduction and manhandling of Dawood, I am of the view that bail can be granted to the petitioner on stringent conditions.

¶34

The petitioner shall be released on bail on his executing bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - I, Kasaragod, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

a) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. on all Mondays and Thursdays for a period of two months and thereafter, on all Mondays till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶36

b) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶37

c) The petitioner shall surrender his passport before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - I, Kasaragod within one week. If the petitioner does not hold an Indian Passport,

¶38

B.A. No.1665 OF 2010

¶39

:: 5 ::

¶40

an affidavit to that effect, sworn to by him, shall be filed before the learned Magistrate within a period of one week;

¶41

d) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶42

e) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

¶43

f) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶44

The Bail Application is allowed as above.

¶45

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶46

ahz/

Najeemudin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najeemudin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Niyas N.K. Vs State of Kerala

M. Saliman Vs H.R. Babu Suresh and Another

Sebastian Chokkattu Vs State of Kerala

Shabeer.C.M. Vs the State of Kerala

Uthaman Vs Excise Inspector, Ranni Excise Range

Das.K.J. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others