Allowed

Najeema v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC21 Jan 2013Bail Appl./260/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application for accused persons charged with cheating and offences under the Money Lenders Act. The court found substance in the defense alleging the money was remitted to the bank without misappropriation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed bail on ₹15,000 bond with two solvent sureties; must surrender by 31.1.2013 and report weekly; bail to be forfeited upon violation of conditions.

Najeema Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013/1ST MAGHA 1934

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 260 of 2013 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 14/2013 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:-:

¶8

1. NAJEEMA, AGED 34 YEARS W/O.SHAJAHAN, AARIFAMANZIL, HYDERALI NAGAR-7 VAZHAKKOOTTAM, VALATHUNKAL P.O., KOLLAM.

¶9

2. SULBATH, AGED 43 YEARS W/O.ABDUL RAHIM, PANDIYAAMTHODI, RASEENA MANZIL MUKKOM, MAYYANAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS.SRI.BIMAL K.NATH SRI.SREEVALSAN.V SMT.M.K.SHIMI SRI.D.SREENATH

¶10

RESPONDENT

¶11

----------

¶12

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 31.

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

P.BHAVADASAN, J

¶17

-----------------------------------------

¶18

B.A No.260 of 2013

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2013

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners are accused in Crime No.14/2013 of Eravipuram Police Station for having committed offence punishable under Section 420, 468, r/w 34 of IPC and Section 13, 17, 18A and 18B of the Money Lenders Act (Kerala), 1958.

¶22

The allegation against the petitioners is that the defacto complainant had borrowed an amount from the 1^st petitioner, for which he had paid huge interest for a long period. Subsequently, he was unable to pay the interest. It is alleged that then the petitioners, defacto complainant and others joined together to form a 'Janasree' unit and they decided to avail a loan from the Corporation Bank and for that purpose the certain documents were been got signed from all the members of the Bank. The allegation against the petitioners is that utilizing those documents they availed a loan from the Bank and misappropriated the said amount.

¶23

B.A No.260 of 2013 : 2:

¶24

The petitioners would say that the allegations are totally false and without any basis. They have produced Annexure 3, 4 and 5, which would show that the amount has been remitted to the Bank and they have not cheated either the defacto complainant or anybody else.

¶25

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, it seems that there is some substances in the complaint made by the petitioners. Hence, it is felt that this is a fit case where extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is allowed as follows:

¶26

i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 31.1.2013, who after interrogation shall produce them before the JFCM concerned and on applications for bail moved by the petitioners, the learned Magistrate shall release the petitioners on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court.

¶27

ii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail.

¶28

: 3:

¶29

B.A No.260 of 2013

¶30

Iii) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday until further orders.

¶31

iv) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness.

¶32

v) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law.

Sd/-

P.BHAVADASAN

Judge

//True Copy//

P. A to Judge

B.A No.260 of 2013 : 4:

Najeema v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najeema v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

T.B.Majeed Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Manoraj Vs State of Kerala

Sundaran Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev.P. Vs Sub Inspector of Police