Allowed

Ahmed Riyas, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Aug 2019Bail Appl./2948/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed pre-arrest bail application filed by accused persons involved in a business dispute resulting in charges of cheating, unlawful detention and assault, considering their clean record and the nature of the dispute.

What did the court decide?

First respondent directed to release petitioners on bail on execution of bond conditions including sureties and reporting requirements.

Ahmed Riyas, Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.2948 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 288/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.92/2019 OF Thirurangadi Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶9

1 AHMED RIYAS, AGED 40 YEARS S/O.AHAMEDKUTTY, KIZHAKKETHODI (H),

¶10

PUTHOOR PALLIKKAL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

2 NISSAMUDHEEN, AGED 35 YEARS S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, CHETTALI (H), CHEMMAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

3 ABDUL MAJEED, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.RAYINKUTTY HAJEE (LATE), CHETTALI (H), CHEMMAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4 NIDISH, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, VRINDAVAN, PUTHOORPALLIKKAL, THENIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, (NOT AN ACCUSED IN FIR).

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

¶15

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶16

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI-676306.

¶17

2 HABEEB RAHMAN AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN KUNNUMMAL MANGOTTU HOUSE, KARIPPUR P.O., KONDOTTY MALAPPURAM - 673 638

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R2 SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

-2-

¶21

Bail Appl..No.2948 OF 2019

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 in Crime No.92/2019 of Thirurangadi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 365, 384 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC.

¶24

The petitioners have filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶25

Heard.

¶26

The prosecution allegation is that the

¶27

petitioners and the other accused wrongfully restrained the second respondent, assaulted him, and thereafter abducted him to a place and forced him to

¶28

sign various documents, after threatening him by pointing a gun.

¶29

-3-

¶30

Bail Appl..No.2948 OF 2019

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶32

that the petitioners have been already questioned by the Police and hence the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. However, the learned counsel for the second respondent has opposed the application. The learned counsel for the second respondent has also admitted that the dispute in this case occurred in connection with the business transactions between the parties. AnnexureA10 is the statement given by the second respondent before the learned Magistrate when he was produced before the learned Magistrate on 08.02.2019 in another crime. In the said statement, the second respondent did not state that the petitioners used any gun. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the story of gun was a story created by the petitioners subsequently, for the purpose of

¶33

-4-

¶34

Bail Appl..No.2948 OF 2019

¶35

registering a non-bailable offence against the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶36

In the result, this bail application stands allowed and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in the above said crime, on condition of the petitioners executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand only) each, with two solvent sureties each, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioners shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶37

-5-

¶38

Bail Appl..No.2948 OF 2019

¶39

The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 am and 11.00 am for three months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶40

The petitioners shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶41

The petitioners shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Nkr/13.08.2019

Ahmed Riyas, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Riyas, 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

Remesh Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh @ Sudhi Vs State of Kerala

Sajeermon, Vs the State of Kerala

K.a.Sabu, Vs State of Kerala

Zeenath Vs State of Kerala