Allowed

Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Oct 2018Bail Appl./5481/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by accused persons facing charges of forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy regarding the execution of a disputed sale deed. The court observed that the alleged impersonation occurred after the purported donor's death and granted bail subject to strict interrogation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted pre-arrest bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvers sureties each, subject to conditions of investigation cooperation, non-inducement, and non-commission of offences.

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

12IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 17TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5481 of 2018

¶6

CRIME NO. 1863/2011 OF Neyyattinkara Police Station , Thiruvananthapuram

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1 IBRAHIM

¶9

AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.HASSANARUPILLAI,V.K.HOUSE,MARAYKKAMAMOODU,P URAYIDOM,IYKKAMOM,PARASALA.P.O,NEYYATINKARA.

¶10

2 UMMAIBABEEVI

¶11

AGED 50 YEARS,W/O IBRAHIM,V.K.HOUSE,MARAYKKAMAMOODU,PURAYIDOM,IYKKAMOM, PARASALA.P.O,NEYYATTINKARA.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶14

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶15

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM,THROUGH S.I.OF POLICE,NEYYATTINKARA.

¶16

BY THE SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTORN SRI C N PRABHAKARAN.

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Bail Appl..No. 5481 of 2018

¶19

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This application is filed under §438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

The applicants herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 1863 of 2011 registered at the Neyyattinkara Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, they are being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under §§ 193, 196, 406, 465, 468, 474, 419, 420, 120(B) r/w 34 of the IPC.

¶23

In the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, on 29.11.2011, it is alleged that the 1^st applicant is his brother and the 2^nd applicant is the wife of the 1^st applicant. According to the de facto complainant, 13 cents of property comprised under Survey No. 3/10A of Parassala Village was owned by one Sareek Peerukkannu. There was a thatched shed, which was situated in the said property where the family members of the de facto complainant and the 1^st accused used to reside. Out of the aforesaid 13 cents, 6 cents of property was obtained by way of 'Kudikidappu 'on 18.05.1973, as per order O.A.N o. 168/1971. It is alleged that on 16.08.1984, as per document No. 24/1992,

¶24

Bail Appl..No. 5481 of 2018

¶25

¶26

property having an extent of 6 cents was gifted to the sister of the de facto complainant, one Isha Beevi. However, even after the execution of the deed of gift, the de facto complainant and his family members used to reside in the said property. On 17.03.1998, Isha Bheevi left for her heavenly abode and the rights that the lady handed over the property devolved on her husband Abdhul Latheef. It is further alleged that on 08.06.2006 the mother of the de facto complainant and on 14.11.2018 the aforesaid Abdhul Latheef expired. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he is one among the legal heirs of his mother. It is alleged that he is also entitled to proportionate right over the 6 cents of property. According to the de facto complainant, with intent to defraud the sharers, the applicants herein, on 24.07.2004, impersonated the above said Abdhul Latheef and went to the Sub Registrar's Office at Neyyanttinkara and obtained sale deed No. 1196/2004 in their favour. It is further alleged that the fact of execution and registration of the sale deed came to the knowledge of the de facto complainant only in the month of September 2011. He also alleges that the officers of the Sub Registrar's Office had aided the accused to commit the aforesaid acts.

¶27

Bail Appl..No. 5481 of 2018

¶28

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that there is no merits in the allegations. The sale deed was executed in the year 2004 and Abdul Latheef had died only in the year 2008. After the death of Abdul Latheef, when the property rights of the applicants were infringed, they had instituted suits before the competent court and obtained orders. It is further submitted that initially, the documents were sent to the expert and the report was negative. Later, a new Investigating Officer took charge and he had selectively sent certain disputed documents to obtain a report. The parties are near relatives and in a case of this nature, they may not be subjected to the rigours of custodial interrogation, is the submission.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously opposed the prayer. It is submitted that a report was obtained from the Finger Print Bureau which states that the thump impressions in the questioned documents are dis-similar.

¶31

I have considered the submissions advanced and have

¶32

gone through the case diary. The case of the prosecution is that Abdhul Latheef was impersonated and a sale deed was executed

¶33

Bail Appl..No. 5481 of 2018

¶34

¶35

in favour of the applicants herein in the year 2004. Admittedly, Abdhul Latheef was alive till 2008. Furthermore, the 1^st applicant and the de facto complainant are near relatives. Having gone through the entire records, I am of the view that by imposing appropriate conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution, the applicants can be granted an order of pre-arrest bail.

¶36

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days 15.10.2018 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.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶37

i) The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶38

ii) They 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.

¶39

iii) They shall not commit any similar offence while on

¶40

Bail Appl..No. 5481 of 2018

¶41

¶42

bail.

¶43

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.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶46

Dxy

Ibrahim v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibrahim 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

Thasleem.K.K Vs State of Kerala

Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj M.M. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Sathar Vs State of Kerala

Afsal M.K. Vs the Circle Inspector of Excise

Manu Joseph, Vs the State of Kerala