Dismissed

Ummer M.P v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014Bail Appl./2803/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In response to a bail application by an accused, the Kerala High Court denied pre-arrest bail due to the pending investigation required to ascertain the petitioner's role in alleged cheating offenses. The petitioner was directed to cooperate and submit for interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; custody subject to future moot application before magistrate.

Ummer M.P Vs the Sub Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2803 of 2014

¶6

CRIME NO.429/2013 OF THE PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.6:

¶8

UMMER M.P, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, MOTHIRAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.MARAYAMANGALAM, MARAYAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶11

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673001.

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CRIME DETACHMENT, VADAKARA-673001.

¶13

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶18

-------------------------------Bail Appl. No. 2803 of 2014

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of June 2014

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner is the 5^th accused in Crime No.429 of

¶22

2013 of the Payyoli Police station for the offences punishable under Secs.406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Secs. 3 to 5 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning Act), apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that the petitioner collected Rs.7 lakhs from several persons on a promise to give attractive returns, misappropriated the said amount and cheated those persons.

¶24

Learned counsel submitted that the

¶25

allegations are not true. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was cheated by the Prime Way Trading Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and later, that company executed an agreement in favour of the petitioner. Cheque issued to the petitioner was

¶26

Bail Appl. No. 2803 of 2014 2

¶27

dishonoured.

¶28

I have gone through the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, where in paragraph 5 there is reference to the report submitted by the investigating officer as regards the role allegedly played by the petitioner.

¶29

Having regard to the nature of allegations and the investigation required to be done, request for pre arrest bail cannot be allowed. The petitioner has to be interrogated, I am inclined to issue directions.

¶30

The application is disposed of as under.

¶31

Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.429 of 2013 of the Payyoli Police station on 11.06.2014 at 10.00 a.m. for interrogation.

¶32

In case interrogation of the petitioner is not completed that day, it is open to the investigating officer to direct presence of the petitioner on any other day/days and time which the petitioner shall comply.

¶33

Bail Appl. No. 2803 of 2014 3

¶34

Petitioner shall co-operate with

¶35

investigation of the case.

¶36

In case the petitioner is arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day where it is open to the petitioner to request for bail with intimation given to the Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned at least two working days in advance.

¶37

If custody of the petitioner is required for any purpose, it is open to the investigating officer to move application before the learned magistrate for the purpose.

¶38

Learned magistrate shall consider the application(s) having regard to all relevant circumstances including whether custody of the petitioner is required for any purpose and pass appropriate orders as early as possible.

¶39

THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶40

Ummer M.P v. the Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer M.P v. the 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

Anil Vs State of Kerala

Deepan Vs State of Kerala

Vijith Vs State of Kerala

Omana Vs Excise Inspector

Vimal Raj Vs State of Kerala

Sajeevan P.P Vs State of Kerala