Allowed

Shajahan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC22 Nov 2014Bail Appl./8070/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application was filed by the petitioner, who was accused of cheating and money lending offences involving blank signed cheque leaves and stamp papers. The Court allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail subject to the surrender of a bond and fulfillment of specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to execution of a bond for `25,000/- with two solvent sureties and compliance with specified conditions.

Shajahan Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8070 of 2014 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 1302/2014 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAJAHAN, S/O AHAMMAD KHAN, AGED 43 YEARS, MYTHRI MANZIL, VIZHINJAM THERUVU, PERAVILAKAM, VIZHINJAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SMT.RESHMI JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENT :

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶16

¶17

B.A. No.8070 of 2014

¶18

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2014

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶21

Petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1302/2014

¶23

of Vizhinjam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Sections 13, 17 and 18(A) of the Money Lenders Act.

¶24

The allegation against the petitioner is that he

¶25

had been indulging in money lending without any licence. It is alleged that the de facto complainant had borrowed an amount of ₹3 lakhs in the year 2007 for the marriage of the elder sister of his wife. It is alleged that by way of security, some blank signed cheque leaves and blank signed stamp papers were obtained from the de facto complainant and his father-in-law. Even though the amount has been discharged, they are again being threatened by claiming exorbitant

¶26

BA.8070/2014

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

interest, which they are not liable to pay. It is alleged that in a search conducted at the house of the petitioner, some blank signed stamp papers, blank signed cheque leaves, some documents and blank signed papers, in which revenue stamps are affixed, have been recovered.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the allegations against the petitioner are false and the petitioner is not intending to proceed against the de facto complainant or his father-in-law. Further, no amounts are due to him from them. It is also undertaken that the petitioner will never proceed against any person on the basis of the said blank signed stamp papers, blank signed cheque leaves or the blank signed papers in which revenue stamps are affixed. The said documents were obtained years back and presently he is not involved in any such offence. No amounts are due to him from such persons,

¶31

BA.8070/2014

¶32

: 3 :

¶33

who had issued such blank signed stamp papers or blank signed cheque leaves or the signed blank papers in which revenue stamps are affixed. Considering all the above, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the continued investigation of this case. Matters being so, I am of the view that this is a fit case wherein anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner by recording the above said submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶34

In the result, this bail application is allowed and the investigating officer or such other police officer, who is conducting the arrest of the petitioner, is directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest on his executing a bond for `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer conducting arrest, and subject to the following terms and conditions:-

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall report before the

¶36

BA.8070/2014

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

investigating officer in between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. on all Wednesdays and Saturdays, commencing from 26.11.2014 for a period of three months or till the filing of the final report in this case, whichever is earlier.

¶39

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.

¶40

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating officer.

¶41

(iv) The petitioner shall not involve in any offence while on bail.

¶42

It is made clear that the violation of any of the conditions stipulated above will result in the cancellation of

¶43

bail.

¶44

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶45

aks/22/11

¶46

// True Copy // PA to Judge

Shajahan v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shajahan 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

Baby @ Roshan Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Khaleefa Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Vs Station House Officer

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Firose Thayyil Vs the State of Kerala