Allowed

Mohammed Shafi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2017Bail Appl./4149/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a pre-arrest bail application filed under section 438 CrPC regarding cheating and forgery, the court allowed bail subject to conditions including interrogation and no inducement. The petitioner was not named in the initial FIR.

What did the court decide?

Allowed pre-arrest bail subject to appearance before Investigating Officer, regular interrogation on Saturdays, no inducement, and other conditions for one month.

Mohammed Shafi Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2017/20TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 4149 of 2017 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.464/2017 OF KARUNAGAPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MOHAMMED SHAFI, S/O.IBRAHIM, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT BANNATHAMPADI HOUSE, ADHUR P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.DHANIL

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

mbr/

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J

¶16

B.A. No.4149 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2017

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This is an application seeking pre-arrest bail filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

The petitioner has been arrayed as the 7^th accused in Crime No.464 of 2017 of the Karunagppally Police Station, registered alleging offences punishable under sections 468, 406 & 420 read with section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that accused No 1 to 5 claiming to be gold merchants approached the de facto complainant, who is a gold dealer at Sasthamcotta and offered to supply 2 kgs of Gold for a total consideration of Rs 57 Lakhs. A sum of Rs 1 lakhs was allegedly paid towards advance. It is further alleged that on 21.11.2016, the complainant had handed over a sum of Rs 56 Lakhs. The accused failed to supply the gold as assured which led to the registration of the crime.

¶22

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

¶23

BA 4149/2017

¶24

¶25

he has no role to play in the acts of the accused No 1 to 5. It is pointed out that the allegations are in respect of transactions which took place on 11.11.2016 and 17.11.2016. The law was set in motion on 2.2.2017. However, the name of the petitioner does not find a place in the first information statement, which according to the learned counsel speaks volumes as regards his innocence. It is further submitted by the learned counsel, referring to the FI Statement, that specific overt act has been alleged only against the accused Nos.1 to 5.

¶26

Refuting the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation, which was conducted by the officer concerned, revealed that the petitioner also had a role to play in the acts of the accused Nos.1 to 5.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials. It cannot be disputed that the crime was registered after much delay and after exhausting all efforts to get back the amount. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though a detailed statement was furnished by the de

¶28

BA 4149/2017 3

¶29

facto complainant, no role is attributed to the petitioner herein. It appears that the allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein had also benefited from the acts committed by the accused Nos.1 to 5.

¶30

Having regard to the nature and gravity of allegations raised, the role played by the petitioner herein, the delay in lodging the FI Statement and other facts and circumstances, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted. The requirements for a proper investigation could be met with by imposing appropriate condition to be observed by the petitioner.

¶31

In the result, this application is allowed, but subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. If he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶33

(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 AM and 10 AM, for 1 month or till final report is filed, which ever is earlier.

¶34

BA 4149/2017

¶35

¶36

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶37

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

¶38

(v) If he surrenders before the Magistrate, this order shall not be applicable and the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders.

¶39

(vi) In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the concerned court on being noticed of that fact will be empowered to cancel the bail.

¶40

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶41

vps 11.7.17

¶42

/True Copy/

¶43

PS to Judge

Mohammed Shafi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shafi 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

K.S.Ansari Vs State of Kerala

A.P.Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Sunil @ Sanal Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Kunjumon S.K. @ Nasar Vs State of Kerala

Faizal a. Vs the State of Kerala

Prakash Vs State of Kerala