Allowed

Shebin Muhammed v. the S.I. of Police and Another

Kerala HC14 Nov 2011Bail Appl./8115/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, for Crime No.315/2011. The Court held that bail could be granted as the petitioner had complied with the earlier direction to appear before the investigating officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of `10,000/- with two solvent sureties subject to conditions.

Shebin Muhammed Vs the S.I. of Police and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8115 of 2011() ----------------------------CRIME NO.315/2011 OF THRIKKODITHANAM POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED

¶7

¶8

SHEBIN MUHAMMED, S/O, MUHAMMED KUNJU, MANGATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.C.KAVALA P.O, PAYIPPAD,

¶9

CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM-686538

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

SRI.K.JAGADEESH

RESPONDENT(S):

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THRIKKODITHANAM POLICE STATION, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM-686538.

¶15

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

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶19

B.A.No.8115 of 2011

¶20

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2011

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the sold accused in Crime No.315 of 2011 of Thrikkodithanam Police Station, Kottayam District.

¶23

The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

The prosecution case is that the petitioner took a Scorpio car on rent from the de facto complainant and the vehicle was not returned as agreed. The case of the petitioner is that he acted only as a middle man for taking the car on rent by one Shaji from the de facto complainant. The counsel also submitted that the petitioner filed a petition before the police stating the true facts and the vehicle was seized by the police from Shaji and it was handed over to the de facto complainant.

¶25

BA 8115/11

¶26

¶27

4. When the Bail Application came up for admission on

¶28

2.11.2011, the following order was passed :

¶29

“4. 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 petitioner should be directed to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer on 9^th November, 2011.

¶30

5. Post on 14^th November, 2011.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested in connection with Crime No.315 of 2011 of Thrikkodithanam Police Station, till 17^th November, 2011.

¶32

The petitioner shall co-operate with the investigating officer in the matter of investigation and for recovery of incriminating materials, if any.

¶33

BA 8115/11

¶34

¶35

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶36

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the direction in the order dated 2.11.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner.

¶37

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the direction in the order dated 2.11.2011 has been complied with by the petitioner, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.

¶38

There will be a direction that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his 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 :

¶39

BA 8115/11

¶40

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

C) 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 to the extent indicated

above.

K.T.SANKARAN

JUDGE

csl

Shebin Muhammed v. the S.I. of Police and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shebin Muhammed v. the S.I. of Police and Another

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

Achamma Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs State of Kerala

Binod Abraham and Others Vs the State of Kerala

Sijo Pathrose and Others Vs State of Kerala

Soana.D Vs State

Muraleedharan Pillai and Another Vs State of Kerala