Partly allowed

Nheru Ibrahim v. Sub Inspector of Police

Kerala HC8 Jan 2018Bail Appl./5952/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the bail application for the deceased 1st petitioner and granted pre-arrest bail to the 2nd petitioner (accused in IPC 406/420) regarding a commercial dispute involving a dishonored cheque and property transfer, subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed for 1st petitioner; Pre-arrest bail granted to 2nd petitioner subject to conditions.

Nheru Ibrahim Vs Sub Inspector of Police — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 18TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 5952 of 2017

¶6

CRIME NO.530/2017 OF KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 3:

¶8

1 NHERU IBRAHIM, AGED 68 YEARS, RAHMATH MANZIL, PADANNAKADU P.O., KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD.

¶9

2 MUHAMMED ASHRAF K., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.NHERU IBRAHIM, RESIDING DO

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶11

SRI.T.R.TARIN SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SRI.V.A.VINOD

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBLA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD-671122.

¶14

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶15

*ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT IMPLEADED:

¶16

3. SUNIL C. PAULOSE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O C.V. PAULOSE, CHEERAKATHODATHIL HOUSE, PERAL, KOIPADY VILLAGE, MOGRAL P.O., MANJESHWAR TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 321.

¶17

ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED IN CRL.MA.10144/2017 AS PER ORDER DATED 9.10.2017

¶18

R 1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SAJJU S. R3 BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN

¶19

SRI.AKHIL S.VISHNU

¶20

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J

¶23

B.A No.5952 of 2017

¶24

Dated this the 8^th day of January, 2018

¶25

ORDER

¶26

1.This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

2.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 3 in Crime

¶28

No.530 of 2017 of Kumbala Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 465, 406, 420 r/w Sec.34 of the IPC.

¶29

3.When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 1^st petitioner is no more.

¶30

4.The prosecution case in its basic essentials is that de facto complainant was running a petrol pump at Manjeshwar. He was the sole proprietor of the establishment which was run in the name and style as M/s.Imperial Fuels. The business nosedived and he was faced with huge debts. Left with no alternative he searched around for prospective investors. The deceased 1^st petitioner approached him and negotiated for purchase of the property for his son, the 2^nd accused in the crime, who was working abroad. After much negotiations

¶31

B.A No.5952 of 2017 2

¶32

with accused Nos. 1 and 2, the de facto complainant agreed to sell the whole property in favour of the 2^nd accused for a total consideration of Rs.4 Crores. He also agreed to make the 2^nd accused a partner in the business run by him and offered to give him 49% share. The 1^st accused paid a sum of Rs.2.5 Crores prior to the execution of the sale deed. Balance of Rs.1.5 Crores had to be paid on transfer of 49% of share over the business. In terms of the understanding on 19.12.2016, the property was assigned in favour of the 2^nd accused and 49% of the share of the business was transferred with the approval of the HPCL to the 2^nd petitioner as suggested by the 1^st accused. Towards payment of Rs.1.5 Crores, a cheque was issued by the 1^st accused. However, the same was dishonored. The accused did not part with his share of the profit and according to him, the acts of the accused were with intent to deceive him. On these allegations Annexure-I complaint was filed which was referred to the police and a crime was registered.

¶33

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted

¶34

that the dispute is contractual and no element of cheating is involved. It is further submitted that even according to the

¶35

B.A No.5952 of 2017 3

¶36

complainant, the 2^nd petitioner had not entered into any transaction with him. The cheque was issued by the 1^st accused and if the same was dishonoured, action can very well be taken to realize the amount by initiating appropriate proceedings.

¶37

6.The submissions are strongly countered by the learned counsel appearing for the additional 3^rd respondent. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners herein had intentionally deceived the de facto complainant and had persuaded him to part the property without intending to comply with their part of the undertaking.

¶38

7.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well and have gone through materials and records.

¶39

8.As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Annexure-I complaint, no specific allegations have been raised against the 2^nd petitioner. Transactions were between the accused Nos.1 and 2 and the de facto complainant. The cheque that was dishonoured was one issued by the 1^st accused.

¶40

9.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations,

¶41

role played by the 2^nd petitioner herein and other facts and

¶42

B.A No.5952 of 2017

¶43

¶44

circumstances, it does not appear to me that custodial interrogation of the 2^nd petitioner is warranted. Insofar as the 1^st petitioner is concerned, this petition is closed. I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the 2^nd petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶45

i). The 2^nd petitioner shall appear before the investigation officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on he executing a bond for a sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum.

¶46

ii)The 2^nd petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m., for one month or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶47

iii)The 2^nd petitioner 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.

¶48

iv)The 2^nd petitioner shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶49

v) If he surrenders before the court concerned, this order shall not be applicable and the jurisdictional court may pass appropriate orders.

¶50

B.A No.5952 of 2017

¶51

¶52

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.

¶53

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

P.A TO JUDGE

¶56

Nheru Ibrahim v. Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nheru Ibrahim v. Sub Inspector of Police

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

Dudu Jonald Jose Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mangattu Vs State of Kerala

Shani Mon Vs State of Kerala

James @ John K John Vs State of Kerala

Jayalal J Vs State of Kerala

Shankali Vs State of Kerala