Allowed

Shahazad M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Jul 2016Bail Appl./3375/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC in a case alleged to involve cheating under Section 420 IPC relating to a vehicle transaction. The court found investigation practically over and granted bail with sureties and specific reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with two solvent sureties of Rs.50,000 each, subject to conditions of reporting and staying within local limits.

Shahazad M. Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2016/5TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3375 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 225/2016 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶7

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

¶8

APPLICANT/ACCUSED:

¶9

SHAHAZAD M., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL SATHAR, MANNATH HOUSE, VALIYAKUNNU P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. SAINUL ABIDHIN,

¶15

S/O.MOOSA, VALIYATHODI HOUSE, PALLIPPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

P.UBAID, J.

B.A.No.3375 of 2016

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2016

¶23

The petitioner herein seeks pre-arrest bail under

¶24

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.225/2016 of the Changaramkulam Police Station, registered under Section 420 IPC. He is the sole accused in the crime.

¶25

The petitioner herein is said to be a dealer of

¶26

the Maruthi Suzuki vehicle. The complainant herein had purchased a 'Celerio' car from the petitioner, on payment of the full consideration. After taking delivery, the complainant detected some repaired marks on the vehicle. Suspecting that an old vehicle was sold to him by the petitioner, he approached the petitioner with some complaint, but his grievance could not be redressed there. Finding that the dealer would not replace the vehicle, or pay damages to him, he made a complaint against the dealer. It appears that the dispute is actually

¶27

B.A.No.3375 of 2016 2

¶28

covered by Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has already moved District Consumer Forum, for relief. Whether the car supplied by the petitioner was a new one or an old one, is a matter for probe. I do not think that an old vehicle was delivered to the complainant by the petitioner. The vehicle was admittedly a new one, but some signs like re-painted spots were found. Whether the transaction involves elements of cheating, or whether the complainant's remedy is only for damage in the given circumstance, is a matter for probe during trial. In the nature of the allegations and the facts of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not felt necessary.

¶29

This application for pre-arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that investigation is at the preliminary stage, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, he will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶30

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the

¶31

materials including the case diary and the report of the Investigating Officer, I find that investigation in the crime is

¶32

B.A.No.3375 of 2016 3

¶33

practically over, and that the petitioner can be granted prearrest bail. The investigating officer has already questioned the material witnesses. In the nature of the allegations, and also the nature of the materials required for prosecution, I do not find the necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody for the purpose of investigation in the above circumstances. It will suffice that the petitioner is directed to report before the investigating officer periodically. However, some other conditions are also felt necessary for bail.

¶34

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties for Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of his arrest in connection with Crime No.225/2016 of the Changaramkulam Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that,

¶35

a) The petitioner shall report before the

¶36

investigating officer between 10 am and 11 am on all Tuesdays for a period of two months.

¶37

B.A.No.3375 of 2016 4

¶38

b) The petitioner shall not leave the

¶39

limits of Changaramkulam Police Station for a period of two months.

¶40

c) The petitioner shall not in any manner

¶41

influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or he shall not have any contact with the complainant except for the purpose of amicable settlement of the dispute

¶42

in case anybody intervened for such a course.

Sd/-

P. UBAID, JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

Shahazad M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahazad M. 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

Mustakim Muhammed Vs S.I of Police

C.K.Shobhana Vs State Ofkerala

Sarath C.P. Vs the Station House Officer, Kalamassery

K.V. Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala

Raj Mon @ Raju Vs State of Kerala

Jopson Vs State of Kerala