Allowed

Hashir K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Nov 2018Bail Appl./1908/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 in a cheating case involving ₹17.5 lakhs. The High Court granted anticipatory bail conditioned on the petitioners appearing for interrogation, executing bonds with sureties, and refraining from interfering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions: appearance for interrogation, bond of ₹40,000 with two sureties, no intimidation, cooperation in investigation, and no identical offences.

Hashir K Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 1908 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 220/2018 OF VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 & 3:

¶8

1 HASHIR K,

¶9

AGED 26 YEARS, (A2), S/O.MUHAMMED KUNHI, VILAYATH HOUSE, OZHINHAVALAPPU P.O., KANJANGHAD, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN-671314 (STAFF OF EDGROW OVERSEAS COMPANY PVT. LTD. HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT DN 14-6-674/15 MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANKATTA, MANGALAORE HAVING ITS LIAISON OFFICE AT JACOB DD MALL, OPP. TO CENTRE SQUARE MALL, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682035.

¶10

2 SUMIYA SHAMSUDEEN AGED 32 YEARS, (A3), W/O.SHIHASMON E.A., ERAMANGALATH HOUSE, ASHOKAPURAM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA693101. (STAFF OF EDGROW OVERSEAS COMPANY PVT. LTD. HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT DN 14-6-674/15 MAXIMUS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, HAMPANKATTA, MANGALAORE HAVING ITS LIAISON OFFICE AT JACOB DD MALL, OPP. TO CENTRE SQUARE MALL, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-682035.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.VENUGOPAL SRI.JACOB SAMUEL SRI.P.BIJIMON

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 31.

¶14

2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM RURAL-683522.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

PP AJITH MURALI

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 1908 of 2018

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.220/2018 of Vadakkekara Police Station, Ernakulam District for offences punishable under Sections 420, 342, 506, 294(B) read with 34 IPC. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused offered to arrange admission to the de facto complainant in a Foreign University for MBBS course. They received a sum of ₹17,50,000/-. Without providing the admission, accused allegedly cheated the de facto complainant. Hence, crime was registered.

¶22

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, pending the bail application filed by the 1^st accused de facto complainant appeared before the trial court and submitted that he has settled the matter. Annexure V is the interim bail granted by the court below on the basis of the submission of the de facto complainant and the affidavit filed by him. It was submitted by

¶23

Bail Appl..No. 1908 of 2018

¶24

¶25

the learned counsel for the petitioners that thereafter settlement was reported and the 1^st accused was enlarged on bail. The case diary indicates that the matter has been settled between the parties. Having regard to these facts, I am inclined to grant the benefit of prearrest bail to the petitioners.

¶26

Hence, the anticipatory bail application is allowed on the following conditions:

¶27

(i) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be

¶28

released on bail on each of the petitioner executing a bond for a sum of 40,000/- (Rupees₹ forty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each.

¶29

(ii) They shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainant or the witnesses.

¶30

Bail Appl..No. 1908 of 2018

¶31

¶32

(iii) They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶33

(iv) They shall not get involved in any other identical offence and the involvement if any, will be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶36

Pn 29/11

Hashir K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hashir K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hysanth Louis Vs State of Kerala

John Paul Vs State of Kerala

Vinod @ Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Musthafa Vs State of Kerala

Shamshad Vs State of Kerala

Shobhana Vs the State of Kerala