Dismissed

Mohammed Shafeek v. the Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC9 Feb 2018Bail Appl./7329/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a corruption and cheating case involving bank fraud. The court deemed the allegations grave and held that custodial interrogation was necessary, ruling that anticipatory bail was not justified. However, the court directed the petitioner to surrender within 15 days, with production before the Specia

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to surrender before the investigating officer within 15 days, after which they can file a fresh bail application before th

Mohammed Shafeek Vs the Superintendent of Police — Corruption | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 20TH MAGHA, 1939 Bail Appl..No. 7329 of 2017

¶5

CRIME NO.RC3(A)2017/CBI/ACB/COCHIN/2017 OF CBI, ACB,COCHIN, ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED

¶7

MOHAMMED SHAFEEK S/O. MUHAMMED SAHIB, AGED 50 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S. HOME TOWN DEVELOPERS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. A5, AATTARA APARTMENTS, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.AJAKUMAR SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT.:

¶10

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, SPE, ACB, KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682017.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I.

¶12

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

STK

¶14

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶15

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

¶16

B.A. No.7329 of 2017

¶17

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2018

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime R.C.No. 3(A)/ 2017/ CBI/ ACB/ COCHIN/2017 registered for the offences under Section 120B r/w Section 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶20

The petitioner has filed this application praying for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶21

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated as follows:-

¶22

The first accused while working as Assistant Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Ranny, during the period from 5.6.2009 to 20.06.2012, committed criminal conspiracy with the second accused, to cheat the bank by abusing the official position of the first accused and by recourse to corrupt and illegal means, and pursuant to the

¶23

B.A. No.7329 of 2017

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

said criminal conspiracy, the first accused recommended and disbursed public fund of the bank amounting to Rs.3.84 crores, in violation of the orders and circulars of the bank, deceptively under the financial schemes such as housing loans, agricultural cash credits and transport operator loans etc. in collusion with co-accused.

¶26

The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Home Town Developers. The first accused accepted and acted upon the forged documents from twelve customers, provided by the petitioner and disbursed deceptive housing loans to them to construct villas at a place nearly 75 kms away from the branch from which the loan was sanctioned. Inspection was conducted by the Assistant General Manager and thereafter a complaint was filed to the CBI.

¶27

Heard.

¶28

It appears from the case diary that the petitioner arranged twelve customers for granting

¶29

B.A. No.7329 of 2017

¶30

-: 3 :-

¶31

deceptive housing loans from the bank with the aid of forged documents. The purpose of the loan was for the construction of villas at a place 75 kms away from the bank. The allegation against the petitioner is very grave in nature. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had committed similar type of offences or not. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. will be justified.

¶32

In the result, this application stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within 15 days from today. If the petitioner surrenders before the investigating officer within 15 days from today, the investigating officer shall produce him before the jurisdictional Special Court after interrogation. If the petitioner files any application for bail on such production before the jurisdictional Special Court,

¶33

B.A. No.7329 of 2017

¶34

-: 4 :-

¶35

the Special Court concerned shall consider and dispose of the application for bail, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

STK

¶39

//TRUE COPY// //P.A. TO JUDGE//

Mohammed Shafeek v. the Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shafeek v. the Superintendent 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

Monson K. Mathew Vs the C.B.I

Shihab Vs Debesh Kumar Behra

Rajeshkumar.T.K Vs State of Kerala

S. Harilal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation, Ernakulam

V.Krishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police

N.T. Sugunan Vs Sukhalal V.C.