Allowed

Shahina v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Dec 2018Bail Appl./5134/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused in cheating and criminal conspiracy under IPC. Court noted reduced roles of petitioners and allowed bail subject to interrogation, bond execution, and passport surrender conditions within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners to appear within 10 days, execute bond with two sureties, surrender passports, and cooperate with investigation without threatening witnesses.

Shahina Vs 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

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5134 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 729/2016 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 4:

¶8

1 SHAHINA W/O SAGHEER, KADAVARAM DESOM, PAPPINIVATTOM VILLAGE, MATHILAKAM, KODUNGALLUR.

¶9

2 ANAS BABU KADAPARAMBIL HOUSE, LOKAMALESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING THE S.I OF POLICE, KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION-638003.

¶13

2 ADDL.R2. WAHIDA AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SHERIEF, NADUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KANDAMKULAM, METHALA, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.12.2018 IN CRL.M.A.1/2018.)

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶15

PP AJITH MURALI

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Bail Appl..No. 5134 of 2018

¶18

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4 in Crime No.729/2016 of Kodungallur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 34 of IPC. De facto complainant alleged that she had financial transaction with the 1^st petitioner. To clear off the liability of the de facto complainant and her husband, they thought of selling a portion of their land. It is stated that the petitioners and some of the other accused advised to mortgage that portion of the land to avail a loan. Accordingly, a substantial amount was received in 2014. A sum of about 29,00,000/- was stated to be given to₹ the 3^rd accused who was introduced by the 1^st petitioner for running an offset press. It was stated that the accused offered to give the share

¶21

of profit received from running of the offset press. Alleging that the de facto complainant did not receive the share of profit and that the

¶22

Bail Appl..No. 5134 of 2018

¶23

¶24

entire money invested has been misused by the accused, complaint was laid. Accused Nos.2 and 4 seeks bail, apprehending arrest.

¶25

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the de facto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

4. It appears that the deposit of amount of ₹29,00,000/- in the business of the 3rd accused seems to be undisputed. It also emerges that there was some transactions between the 1^st petitioner and the de facto complainant. Even the de facto complainant has a case that towards the recovery of amount due, a cheque was given by the 2^nd accused to the de facto complainant, based

¶27

on which she has initiated Section 138 proceedings. The role played by the 1^st petitioner seems to be that she had introduced the 3^rd accused to the de facto complainant and advised to invest the money in the business. 2^nd

¶28

Bail Appl..No. 5134 of 2018

¶29

¶30

petitioner, who is the 4^th accused is stated to have guaranteed the transaction. The role attributed to the petitioners seems to be lesser when compared to that of the remaining accused. Having considered these facts and also the fact that the amount was invested in the year 2014, I am inclined to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶31

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

¶32

(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 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.

¶33

Bail Appl..No. 5134 of 2018

¶34

¶35

(ii) They shall surrender their passport and if not, file an affidavit before the Investigating Officer in this regard at the time of execution of the bond. However, further directions regarding the release of the passport will be within the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional court.

¶36

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

¶37

(iv) They shall appear before the

¶38

Investigating Officer as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶42

Pn 03/12

Shahina v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahina 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

Rameshan K. Vs State of Kerala

Adil Bin Salim Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Central Station

Anwar Thasli.P Vs State of Kerala

Priya Vs the State of Kerala

Akseenia Vs State of Kerala

Shefeeq Vs State of Kerala