Allowed

Noorjahan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Aug 2011Bail Appl./5236/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to three accused persons charged with cheating and forgery. The petitioners had already complied with an interim direction to appear before the investigating officer. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions including appearance during interrogation and non-tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with direction to release on bond for Rs. 10,000 with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions of appearing for interrogation and not tampering with evidence.

Noorjahan Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2011 / 11TH SRAVANA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5236 of 2011()

¶6

----------------------------CRIME NO.1039/2011 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

NOORJAHAN, W/O.JAMAL, AGED 50 YEARS, PULLIYATH HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., KOCHI.

¶11

JAMAL, W/O.UMMER, AGED 57 YEARS, PULLIYATH HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., KOCHI.

¶12

JUNAID, S/O.JAMAL, AGED 22 YEARS, PULLIYATH HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., KOCHI.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SRI.K.V.REJANISH

¶14

RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT

¶15

¶16

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶20

Bail Appln.No.5236 of 2011

¶21

Dated this the 02^nd day of August, 2011

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1039 of 2011 of Aluva Police Station, Ernakulam District.

¶24

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420 and 465 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

When the Bail Application came up for admission on 20/07/2011, the following order was passed:

¶26

“3. The first accused is the wife of the second accused. The third accused is the son of accused Nos.1 and 2. The de facto complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court and it was forwarded to the police for investigation. Accordingly, the crime was registered. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 3 borrowed a sum of Rupees Seven lakhs form the de facto complainant, who is none other than the brother of the first accused. When the amount was demanded, the first accused signed and issued a cheque in the account of the third accused, as if the

¶27

Bail Appln.No.5236/2011

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

cheque belongs to the account of the first accused.

¶30

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence, I am of the view that before considering the question of granting anticipatory bail, the petitioners should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer on 25^th July, 2011.

¶31

Post on 29^th July, 2011.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.1039 of 2011 of Aluva Police Station, till 3^rd August, 2011.””

¶33

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 20/07/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners.

¶34

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 20/07/2011 has been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioners,

¶35

Bail Appln.No.5236/2011

¶36

: 3 :

¶37

the officer in charge of the police station shall release them on bail on their executing bond for `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶38

a) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶39

b) The petitioners shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence.

¶40

c) The petitioners shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail.

¶41

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

¶42

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶43

above.

¶44

Sd/- K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶45

skj

Noorjahan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noorjahan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manaf Vs State

Faizal a.Samad Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Public Prosecut

K.J.Albert and Another Vs Station House Officer,Thoppumpady Police

M/S.Southern Weighing Instruments (P)Ltd Vs State of Kerala

Nishad Vs the State of Kerala

Subair @ Subair Sabhahi and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another