Allowed

Thoufeek v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2018Bail Appl./2469/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC where the underlying dispute involved cheque dishonour due to breach of repayment terms, holding that custodial interrogation was not necessary and granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on Rs. 40,000 security; appearance before IO within 10 days and Saturdays; prohibition on inducing witnesses or committing similar offences.

Thoufeek Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2469 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 177/2018 OF KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED

¶8

THOUFEEK, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O.ABDUL RAHIM, RESIDING AT RAFEEK MANZIL, CHANDANATHOPPE P.O., PERINADU, KOLLAM, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.V.A.AJIVAS

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2018 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.2476 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

IAP

¶15

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.

¶16

B.A. Nos.2469 & 2476 of 2018

¶17

Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2018

¶18

ORDER

¶19

1.These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶20

2.The applicants herein are the accused Nos.1 & 3 in Crime No.177 of 2018 of the Kilikolloor Police Station, registered under Sections 406, 420, 120B r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

¶21

3.The de facto complainant is the distributor of Oxygen Services (India) Private Ltd. in the Kollam Area. The applicants herein, who are father and son respectively, were granted the permit to operate two outlets to sell the products of the Company.

¶22

Advance amounts were received by the applicant from the company to carry out the digital transactions. However, they failed to repay the amount as per the terms and conditions. A sum of about Rs.13 Lakhs stands outstanding as on date. Towards discharge, separate cheques were issued which when presented were dishonoured for want of funds. This led to the lodging of the complaint.

¶23

4.The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that a purely civil dispute has been given the cloak of a

¶24

B.A.Nos.2469 & 2476 of 2018 2

¶25

criminal offence in disguise. The transactions have not been settled as on date and the cheques presented by the de facto complainant were those which were entrusted purely as a security. Furthermore, without proceeding to initiate the proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the de facto complainant has sought for police help to harass the applicants.

¶26

5.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have considered the submissions advanced.

¶27

6.Having regard to the nature of allegations , I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the applicants are required in the instant case for effectively investigating the matter.

¶28

7.In the result, these applications will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the investigating officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if they are proposed to be arrested, they shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶29

B.A.Nos.2469 & 2476 of 2018 3

¶30

(i)The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 10 A.M and 1 P.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶31

ii)The applicants 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.

¶32

iii)The applicants shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶33

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶36

IAP //True Copy\

¶37

P.A to Judge

Thoufeek v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thoufeek 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

Althaf Vs State of Kerala

Munavar Vs the Excise Inspector

Fahid Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Shareef Pari Vs State of Kerala

Nrebinraj P.G. Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Muhammed Anil Vs State of Kerala