Allowed

Bajida, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2019Bail Appl./3628/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner accused of cheating in a job visa scam pleaded innocence and claimed civil nature of dispute. Court distinguished her role from other accused and denied necessity of custodial interrogation, granting bail upon bond and surrender of charges.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on executing bond for Rs.40,000 and furnishing two solvent sureties for the same sum, upon arrest.

Bajida, Vs the State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 1ST ASWINA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL.NO.3628 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.65/2019 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

BAJIDA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O ARIFA BEEVI, MANAPURATHU, KINARUVILA, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP, SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE SMT.O.A.NURIYA, SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOOD POLICE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶12

*2 SREEJITH,S/O SIVADASAN, NADAYIL KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, NEENDOOR MURI, PALLIPPADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. ADDL. 3 VISHNU, S/O VIJAYANPILLA, NEYSHERIYIL HOUSE, NEENDOOR MURI, PALLIPATTU VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-690516.

¶13

*ADDL. 4 MANU, S/O MOHANAN, VYASAMANDIRAM, NEENDOOR MURI, PALLIPATTU VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-690516.

¶14

*ADDL. 5 SAMBATH, S/O.SAMKUTTY, SAMBATHU VILLA, MUTTAM (PARIMANAM), KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA-690516.

¶15

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3, R4 AND R5 AS PER ORDER DATED 2.7.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019.

¶16

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

B.A. No. 3628 of 2019

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2019

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 among the 4 accused in the instant Crime No.65/2019 on the file of Anchalummood Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.420, 506, 290, 352, 120B r/w 34 of the IPC, pursuant to the directions issued by the learned Magistrate in Anx.A2 private criminal complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant.

¶23

The prosecution case in short is that, A4 had invited the 2^nd respondent defacto complainant and other interested persons to approach A3 who is running a travel agency, which are entrusted to secure job Visas in New Zealand. Pursuant thereto, respondents 2 to 5 had responded to the said Whatsapp invitation, and R-4 had remitted Rupees Three Lakhs and R-5 had remitted Rupees One Lakh, directly to the account of the petitioner herein (A1), who is the wife of A2. Further that, R-4 & R-5 had entered into Anx.A3 contract dated 17.7.2018, wherein it has been acknowledged about such

¶24

..3..

¶25

B.A. No. 3628 of 2019

¶26

payments, and that in case the Visas cannot be arranged, then the amounts be refunded to the parties concerned, and that no time limit has been prescribed in Anx.A3 document for return of money.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner would point out that, the petitioner is an innocent victim in this case, and that the allegation raised against her is that, the amounts were remitted to her bank account, and she had not received a single paise, and her husband is living an extravagant life, and that even the family property of the petitioner have now been proceeded against by the bank, as can be seen from Anx.A6. Further that, a reading of the FIS and the Anx.A2 private criminal complaint would make it clear that, serious allegations are raised as against A4, and A4 is the one who had set in motion the Whatsapp invitation, as well as A3 is running the travel agency which are responsible for providing job Visas in New Zealand. That in view of the specific agreement as per Anx.A3, it can be seen that, even the payments of amounts have been acknowledged therein, and that it is specifically provided that, in case the parties cannot be given job Visas, then the money will be returned to them, and further that, no time limit is stipulated therein for returning the money, and that the factum of Anx.A3 agreement is also admitted to by the

¶28

..4..

¶29

B.A. No. 3628 of 2019

¶30

2^nd respondent defacto complainant, in Anx.A2 private criminal complaint, and at best, it could amount to civil disputes between the parties, etc. Accordingly, it is urged by the petitioner's counsel that she could be granted anticipatory bail, and she will fully co-operate with the investigation process, and that otherwise, remanding her would ruin her life, etc.

¶31

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the facts of the case to the limited extent which involves the petitioner herein (A1) to be distinguished from the roles of other accused persons concerned, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary for the smooth and fair conduct of investigation in the instant crime. Accordingly it is ordered that, in the event of the petitioner being arrested by police in connection with the abovesaid crime, she shall be released on bail on executing bond for Rs.40,000/- and on furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶32

Further it is also ordered that the grant of bail will be subject to following conditions:-

¶33

B.A. No. 3628 of 2019

¶34

..5..

¶35

i. The petitioner shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶36

ii. The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶37

iii. The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶38

iv. The petitioner shall not influence witness or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶39

If there is any violation of the abovesaid conditions by the petitioner then the jurisdictional court concerned stand hereby empowered, to consider the plea for cancellation of bail at the appropriate time.

¶40

With these observations and directions, the above Bail Application will stand disposed of.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶43

MMG

Bajida, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajida, v. the 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

Sudheesh Vs Snija P.K.

Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Pradeesh Kumar, Vs the State of Kerala

P.Joshi, Vs Jayasree

Meera Vs Land Tribunal

Anoop Sadasivan Vs State of Kerala