Disposed

Mustakim Muhammed v. S.I of Police

Kerala HC26 Jul 2016Bail Appl./4015/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail applicant appearing as the second accused in a cheating case to surrender for interrogation instead of granting pre-arrest bail, dismissing the immediate bail plea to enable investigation into his role.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to surrender for interrogation; bail request deferred until after magistrate's review post-investigation.

Mustakim Muhammed Vs S.I of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2016/4TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4015 of 2016 ()

¶6

------------------------------CRIME NO. 2247/2015 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 :

¶8

MUSTAKIM MUHAMMED, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, 39-MOTHINAGAR, K.D.A. COLONY, JAJMAN, KANPUR, UTTAR PRADESH.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGIE SIMON

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶11

S.I OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------B.A No. 4015 of 2016

¶16

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

¶17

Dated this the 26^th day of July, 2016

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.2247/2015 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam, registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He is the second accused in the crime.

¶20

It is submitted that the first accused was arrested by the police, and later he was released on bail. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner herein had no involvement in the transaction between the first accused and the complainant, and that the entire amount was in fact received by the first accused. In the nature of the allegations, I feel it appropriate to direct the petitioner to surrender before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation. Interrogation for the collection of some materials concerning the role of the petitioner herein, as to whether he had in any manner participated in the transaction between the first accused and the

¶21

¶22

B.A No. 4015 of 2016

¶23

complainant, whether he had made any offer or promise to the complainant, whether he was in any manner benefitted by the transaction, whether he had received any amount from the complainant etc; is felt necessary. After such interrogation, the request for regular bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. I do not think that the learned Magistrate will mechanically remand the petitioner to judicial custody. The entire case records will have to be perused to see whether the petitioner herein had any dishonest or vicious role in the alleged transaction, or whether he was in any manner benefitted by the transaction.

¶24

In the result, this application for bail is disposed of as

¶25

follows:

¶26

a) The petitioner will surrender before the investigating officer between 9 am. and 10 am on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶27

b) After necessary interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of arrest itself.

¶28

¶29

B.A No. 4015 of 2016

¶30

c) If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that

¶31

the interrogation as part of investigation is over, and that there is no necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody, the petitioner can be released on appropriate conditions.

Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE

//True Copy//

P.A to Judge

Mustakim Muhammed v. S.I of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mustakim Muhammed v. S.I 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

Bijimon @ Shijin Vs State of Kerala

Zakeer Hussain Vs State of Kerala

S.J.Satheesh Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Shobhana Vs State Ofkerala

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

Soniya Ratheesan Vs State of Kerala