Allowed

Abdul Nazar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2013Bail Appl./6108/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Kerala allowed bail to the accused petitioners in a case alleged to involve cheating and money lending offences. The court granted bail subject to surrender and other conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on surrender before Investigating Officer by 08.10.2013, execution of bond with sureties, reporting to Investigating Officer, and non-interference with witnesses.

Abdul Nazar Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/9TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 6108 of 2013 () ------------------------------CRIME NO.1063/2013 OF NENMARA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTICT

¶6

APPLICANTS/ACCUSED A1 & 2 :

¶7

1. ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 39 YEARS S/O ABDUL REHMAN, MEHARIN MANZIL, POTHUVAY ROAD AYILUR P.O., NENMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶8

2. DURAISWAMY, AGED 36 YEARS S/O THYAGARAJA CHETTIYAR, V.K.C.KALAM, CHATHAMANGALAM, NENMARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN:682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2013 ALONG WITH BA NO.6325/2013,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

P. BHAVADASAN, J.

¶16

- - - - B.A. Nos. 6108 & 6325 of 2013

¶17

- - - - Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2013.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in Crime

¶20

No.1063 of 2013 of Nemara Police Station, who are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and

¶21

420 read with Section 34 I.P.C., Sections 13 and 17 of Kerala

¶22

Money Lenders Act and Section 3 read with Section 9(a) of Kerala Prohibition of Charge Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012.

¶23

The allegation against the petitioners is that the

¶24

defacto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the second accused, according to the complainant, after registering 3.5 cents of property in the name of the first accused as security. She would say that the understanding was to re-register the property in her name when the money is

¶25

paid back to the second accused. But, contrary to the promise, it is alleged that the second accused sold the

¶26

B.A.6108 & 6325/2012. 2

¶27

property and made it impossible for her to get back the property.

¶28

According to the petitioners, there were two

¶29

transactions in relation to the property and in one of the transactions, the husband of the defacto complainant is the witness. According to them, the present allegations are made to extract money from the petitioners. The petitioners would say that they are innocent and they seek pre-arrest bail.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the petition and pointed out that petitioners 3 and 4 are instrumental in appropriating the property of the complainant. It is also pointed out that investigation is at an infant stage.

¶31

After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, it may be difficult to accept the plea of the petitioners that they are totally innocent. But it is significant to notice that the complainant has not sought for reconveyance of the property and her complaint seems to be

¶32

B.A.6108 & 6325/2012. 3

¶33

that since the property has been sold, she will not get reconveyance. One fails to understand on what basis she says that the property is not available for reconveyance. It is also seen that in one of the documents, husband of the complainant is a witness. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the plea of the complainant that she was totally unaware of the transactions. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioners.

¶34

Therefore, these applications are allowed on the following conditions:

¶35

i) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 08.10.2013, who, after interrogation, shall produce them before the court concerned, which court, on applications for bail being moved by the petitioners, shall release them on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court.

¶36

B.A.6108 & 6325/2012.

¶37

¶38

ii) The court concerned may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond.

¶39

iii) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. until further orders.

¶40

iv) Petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses.

¶41

v) If any of the conditions is violated, bail granted to the petitioners shall stand cancelled, and the court concerned may take such steps as are available in law.

¶42

P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE

¶43

sb.

Abdul Nazar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Nazar 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

Rashid.M. Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Nizar Vs State of Kerala

Umesh Vs State of Kerala

A.Sudhag Vs State of Kerala

Samson Vs State of Kerala

Majiziya Bhanu Vs State of Kerala