Allowed

Kareem v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Sept 2016Bail Appl./5739/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to accused Nos. 6, 7, and 9 in a case involving cheating, breach of trust, and forgery. The court found that forgery allegations were primarily against the 10th accused and petitioner involvement in the transaction was unclear. Bail was allowed on conditions of reporting, non-leave, and no contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with bond of ₹50,000 each by two sureties, subject to reporting on Thursdays, not leaving station limits, and no contact with witnesses for two months.

Kareem 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

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/11TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5739 of 2016 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.740/2016 OF HARBOUR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.6, 7 & 9:

¶8

1. KAREEM, AGED 64, S/O.SAIDU PAREED, PROPRIETOR, BLUE MOUNT TEA DEALERS, (WRONGLY SHOWN AS M/S.SHAN TEA COMPANY), M/S.SHAN TEA COMPANY, DOOR NO.7/1001, KAPALANDIMUKKU, KOCHI-682 002.

¶9

2. HARRIS, AGED 38, S/O.KAREEM, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.SHAN TEA COMPANY, DOOR NO.7/1001, KAPALANDIMUKKU, KOCHI-682 002.

¶10

3. SHANAVAS @ SHANU, AGED 35, S/O.KAREEM, PARTNER, M/S.SHAN TEA COMPANY, (WRONGLY DESCRIBED AS PARTNER, M/S.BLUE MOUNT TEA DEALERS), 24/500, SR BUILDING, GV AYYAR ROAD, W/ISLAND, KOCHI-682 003.

¶11

BY SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS.SRI.R.ANIL SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SRI.M.VIVEK SRI.A.RAJESH SRI.B.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

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

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No. 5739 of 2016

¶20

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶21

Dated this the 2^nd September, 2016

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners herein seek pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest and custodial harassment in connection with Crime No.740 of 2016 of the Harbour Crime Police Station, registered under Sections 403, 406, 409, 419, 420, 477A and 120 (b) of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are the accused Nos.6, 7 and 9 in the crime.

¶24

On a perusal of the complaint in this case, I find that what is alleged prominently is some matters concerning a commercial transaction between the complainant, and the company represented by the petitioners and the others. As regards the offence of cheating and breach of trust, I find that things on these aspects are to be probed into during trial. As regards the allegation of forgery, I find from the complaint that such allegations are mainly against the 10^th accused. It is not seen specifically alleged in the complaint, what exactly is

¶25

B.A No. 5739 of 2016

¶26

¶27

the role or complicity of these petitioners in the alleged transaction. There is nothing to show that any document was in fact forged by these petitioners. The prominent allegations on material aspects are seen made against the 10^th accused, who is the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant company. If he had done any mischief, or has caused any wrongful loss to the complainant company, the others cannot be made liable, unless there are sufficient materials to show their involvement in the alleged transaction. Even while alleging forgery, the complaint does not disclose who exactly forged the documents, or whether these petitioners had in fact any role in the alleged forgery. In the above circumstances, I feel it appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail to these petitioners on conditions. It will suffice that the petitioners are directed to report before the Investigating Officer for necessary interrogation.

¶28

In the result, this petition for pre-arrest bail

¶29

is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing bond with two solvent sureties for ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the

¶30

B.A No. 5739 of 2016

¶31

¶32

satisfaction of the arresting officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction, in case of their arrest in connection with Crime No.740 of 2016 of the Harbour Crime Police Station. Bail is granted on condition that;

¶33

a) The petitioners shall report before the investigating officer between 10 am. and 11 am on all Thursdays for a period of two months.

¶34

b) The petitioners shall not leave the limits

¶35

of Harbour Crime Police Station for a period of two months.

¶36

c) The petitioners shall not in any manner influence or intimidate the material witnesses, or they shall not have any contact with the material witnesses directly or over telephone or otherwise.

¶37

Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE

¶38

¶39

/True copy/

¶40

P.S to Judge

Kareem v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kareem 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

Mohanan.v Vs the State of Kerala

Sharafudheen Vs State of Kerala

Dr.P.C. Achankunju Vs State of Kerala

Vineeth Vs State of Kerala

Rajeevan T.K. Vs State of Kerala

Kannan Vs State of Kerala