Allowed

Dr. a.Jehangeer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Apr 2016Bail Appl./2136/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case alleging cheating and conspiracy. The court granted the application subject to specific conditions including surrender, bond execution, and prohibition on tampering with evidence or fleeing.

What did the court decide?

Application for pre-arrest bail allowed subject to surrender, bond execution, and seven specific conditions including no tampering with witnesses or leaving India.

Dr. a.Jehangeer Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/6TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2136 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO. 1520/2015 OF VANCHIYOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANDAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

DR. A.JEHANGEER, S/O (LATE) ALI AKBAR, FATHIMA MANDIRAM, POUDUKADAVU, VALAIAVELI PO, THIRUVANATHAPURAM 21

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.BREJITHA UNNIKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLCI PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.N.SURESH

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶15

B.A. No. 2136 of 2016

¶16

Dated this the 26^th day of April, 2016

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

1.Application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶19

2.The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 in Crime No.1520/2015 of the Vanchiyoor Police Station. The aforesaid crime has been registered against one Shawn Rithin Gomez and two others, alleging offfences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶20

3.The allegation is that the accused had taken a sum of Rs.5.5 lakhs on various dates, assuring that the son of the defacto complainant would be taken abroad and provided with employment. Though he was taken abroad, the employment as assured was not provided and he had to return back home. On these allegations, a complaint was preferred before the State Police Chief,

¶21

..2..

¶22

B.A. No. 2136 of 2016

¶23

which was referred to the police, resulting in the registration of the crime.

¶24

4.Heard the rival submissions.

¶25

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶26

that the petitioner is a lawyer, who is practising at Thiruvananthapuram, and the 1^st accused is one of his clients, who incidentally is the Managing Director of a company at Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram. The son of the defacto complainant was an employee of the petitioner. The son of the defacto complainant had contacted the 1^st accused directly and at his instance, the said person has gone abroad. Annexure B, copy of the visa, is produced to prove the said fact. Later, he had returned back since he was not satisfied with the employment abroad. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had nothing to do with the transactions entered into between the 1^st accused and the son of the defacto complainant, and he has been arrayed as accused in an attempt to tarnish his

¶27

B.A. No. 2136 of 2016

¶28

..3..

¶29

reputation as a lawyer.

¶30

6.The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the records revealed that the petitioner had a role to play in the act committed by the 1^st accused.

¶31

7.After having heard the rival submissions and after considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the antecedents of the petitioner and also the possibilty of the petitioner fleeing from justice, I am of the considered view that the relief of pre-arrest bail can be granted to the petitioner subject to conditions.

¶32

8.In the result, this application is allowed, but, subject to the following conditions;

¶33

(a)Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer within a period of two weeks and after interrogation, he shall execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer effecting the arrest. In that event, he shall be released on bail in Crime No.1520/2015 of Vanchiyoor Police Station.

¶34

(b)The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so

¶35

B.A. No. 2136 of 2016

¶36

..4..

¶37

as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶38

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

¶39

(d)The petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the prosecution witnesses or attempt to tamper with the evidence for the prosecution.

¶40

(e)The petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶41

(f)The petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the jurisdictional magistrate.

¶42

(g)In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the officer concerned shall be empowered to arrest the petitioner as if no orders have been passed.

¶43

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V. JUDGE

¶44

bka/26.04.16

¶45

//True copy//

¶46

PA to Judge

Dr. a.Jehangeer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. a.Jehangeer 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

M.M.Hassan Vs State of Kerala

M. Sheriff Rehman Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Arun Kumar.D and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

Joshy Joseph Vs the State of Kerala

Nikhil @ Arun Vs State of Kerala

Yohel Vs State of Kerala