Allowed

Kunhimohammed @ Kunhimon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Mar 2017Bail Appl./844/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 IPC. The court observed that Section 420 and 468 IPC were not prima facie attracted and granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with bond of Rs. 25,000, two sureties, and undertakings to surrender passport, appear for interrogation, and not influence witnesses.

Kunhimohammed @ Kunhimon Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/3RD CHAITHRA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 844 of 2017

¶6

-------------------------------------CRIME NO. 345/2016 OF PERUMPADAPPU POLICE STATION

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED :

¶8

KUNHIMOHAMMED @ KUNHIMON, S/O.KUNHIBAPPU, AGED 62 YEARS, PURADATH (H), AYIROOR P.O., PERUMPADAPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH

¶10

SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

*** ADDITIONAL R2 IMPLEADED**

¶14

2. SHANIR K., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. IBRAHIM, AYINIKKAL, AYIROOR P.O., PERUMPADAPPU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679 580.

¶15

ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 24.03.2017 IN CRL.M.A.NO. 1896 OF 2017.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SAJJU.S ADDL.R2 BY ADVS. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN

¶17

SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.VINODE V. LUKA

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Msd.

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

B.A.No.844 of 2017

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2017

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶26

The petitioner is the accused in Crime

¶27

No.345/2016 of Perambra Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 419, 420 and 468 IPC. He is the son of one Kunjibappu Thonikadavil. His uncle is one Bappu @ Enu Thonikadadavil. The prosecution case is that the petitioner claimed himself to be the son of Bappu @ Enu and executed a sale deed in favour of a stranger in respect of a property which belonged to Bappu and thus committed the offences mentioned above.

¶28

The learned counsel submits that the

¶29

petitioner's father's name also is Bappu and this is a politically motivated litigation.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the first informant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

I have perused the complaint filed by the first informant before the Superintendent of Police, Malappuram.

¶32

¶33

B.A.No.844 of 2017

¶34

The person who purchased the property from the petitioner has no case that he was cheated. Prima facie Section 420 IPC is not attracted. The first informant has no case that the petitioner is not known by the name Kunjimohammed and that the signature appearing in the disputed document is not his genuine signature. So, it is doubtful whether Section 468 IPC also is attracted. At best, Section 419 IPC may be attracted. That is a bailable offence.

¶35

Having regard to these facts I am inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner.

¶36

In the result, the application is allowed.

¶37

The petitioner shall be released on bail after

¶38

interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum if he is arrested by the investigating officer in connection with this case.

¶39

He shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation if he is so required by him.

¶40

He shall surrender his passport before the lower court concerned or if he does not have one he shall file an

¶41

¶42

B.A.No.844 of 2017

¶43

affidavit to that effect within five days of his release.

¶44

He shall not get himself involved in any other

¶45

criminal case while he is on bail.

¶46

He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence

¶47

the witnesses.

¶48

He shall not destroy or tamper with evidence.

¶49

In case of violation of any of the above conditions,

¶50

the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in

¶51

accordance with the law.

Sd/-

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

JUDGE

// True Copy //

P.A. to Judge

Kunhimohammed @ Kunhimon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhimohammed @ Kunhimon 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

Sajeer Vs State of Kerala

Ajikumar Vs State of Kerala

Devaprasad Vs State of Kerala

Bosco Vs the State of Kerala

John K.Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Kalyani Vs State of Kerala