Allowed

Ameershah S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 May 2018Bail Appl./2620/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the first accused, in a cheating case under Sections 420, 468, 424, and 34 of the IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation is not absolutely necessary as investigation is in progress.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioner released on bail after interrogation by executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with solvent sureties.

Ameershah S. Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 14TH VAISAKHA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 2620 of 2018

¶5

CRIME NO.496/2018 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶6

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :

¶7

AMEERSHAH S., ANEESH MANZIL, NADUKUNNU P.O., PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT :

¶10

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶11

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR P.N.SUMODU

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

4.5.2018

SHIRCY V, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶17

B.A.No. 2620 of 2018

¶18

¶19

Dated this the 4^th day of May, 2018

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for pre-arrest bail.

¶22

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in Crime No.496 of

¶23

2018 of the Pathanapuram Police Station, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 424 and 34 of the IPC.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioner with the intention to deceive the de facto complainant and to snatch away the Innova Car owned by the de facto complainant had taken the car from him under the pretext that he had to go for a tour for 6 days and taken the car from the residence of the de facto complainant on 10.8.2017 and thereafter failed to return the same. When the de facto complainant enquired, it was informed by him that the car met with an accident at Tamil Nadu and is entrusted to a workshop for repair works. Thereafter he had made arrangements with the other accused persons to create false documents to conduct sale of the same. Thus the petitioner cheated the de facto complainant and

¶25

B.A.No.2620 of 2018 2

¶26

caused a loss of Rs.14 lakhs and committed the aforesaid offences.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the de facto complainant is a close friend of him and when the de facto complainant faced certain financial difficulties he approached him and borrowed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs. The de facto complainant is the owner of an Innova Car which he purchased by availing a loan from a Bank. As a friend of the de facto complainant, the petitioner has settled the amount due to the Bank and a sum of Rs.9 lakhs have been remitted by him. The de facto complainant had promised to transfer the car in the name of the petitioner but he had not complied with the same though he paid Rs.13 lakhs to the de facto complainant. Actually the de facto complainant has deceived him and filed this complaint raising false allegations. This petitioner is totally innocent and he has nothing to do with the alleged transactions and he has not committed any offence as alleged. But he apprehends arrest and torture by the police and hence this petition.

¶29

B.A.No.2620 of 2018 3

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation of the case is very much in progress. On going through the records produced by him it can be seen that the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is genuine. He had paid some amount to the de facto complainant through bank transaction and the documents pertaining to the said transactions had been produced by him.

¶31

Considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary to proceed with the investigation of the case. Hence I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶32

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶33

1). The petitioner shall be released on bail after interrogation on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum in the event of his arrest by the police in connection with this case.

¶34

2). He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for

¶35

interrogation as and when required by him, in writing.

¶36

B.A.No.2620 of 2018 4

¶37

He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses, nor shall he tamper with the evidence.

¶38

He shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.

¶39

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in

accordance with law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V, JUDGE

IAP //True Copy\

P.A to Judge

Ameershah S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameershah S. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Selin Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Jaisal N.M. Vs State of Kerala

Anu Vs State of Kerala

Manu P.R. Vs State of Kerala

Bethalam Narayani @ C.K. Narayani Vs the Excise Inspector