Allowed

Abdul Nizar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2019Bail Appl./4873/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted pre-arrest bail to two accused persons accused of cheating and forgery under Sections 419, 468, 471, 420 IPC. The court found the case involved a civil dispute regarding a business agreement and signed a cheque with a forged signature, warranting bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with bond of Rs.40,000/- each with two sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and not tampering with investigation.

Abdul Nizar Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4873 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 649/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.231/2019 OF Kondotty Police Station, Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 ABDUL NIZAR, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.M.MOHAMMED,MANHALODAN HOUSE, VELIMUKKU.P.O,PADIKKAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN676317.

¶10

2 FARSANA.P,AGED 24 YEARS W/O.ABDUL NIZAR,MANHALODAN HOUSE, VELIMUKKU.P.O,PADIKKAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT676317.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KONDOTTY POLICE STATION,KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673638. 2 ADDL.R2 AL AMEEN, S/O MOHAMMEDALI, AGED 28 YEARS, KOTTAPARAMBIL VEETTIL, MELANGADI POST, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673647.

¶14

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.07.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA-4873/2019. BY ADVS. SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ SHRI.SUMEEN S.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Case No. BA 4873/19

¶19

-2-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.231 of

¶22

2019 of Kondotty police station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶23

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners

¶24

collected an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the de-facto complainant during January 2017 to December 2018, promising that the de-facto complainant would be given a profit of Rs.24,000/- per month, from the business conducted by the petitioners in Malasia. However, the profit, as promised, was not given. A cheque was also issued by the 2^nd petitioner with a different signature of the

¶25

2^nd petitioner.

¶26

Case No. BA 4873/19

¶27

-3-

¶28

The petitioners have filed this application praying

¶29

for the relief under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

Heard.

¶31

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that

¶32

the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. It appears that the petitioners disputed the agreement and other documents

¶33

relying on by the de-facto complainant. The de-facto complainant also disputed the contention of the petitioners. It is not disputed that the signature in the cheque was put by somebody else, other than the 2^nd petitioner. The said cheque was also drawn from the account of the 2^nd petitioner. Having gone through the relevant inputs, it appears that the dispute involved in this case is having facet

¶34

of civil nature. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to

¶35

grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶36

Case No. BA 4873/19

¶37

-4-

¶38

In the result, this application stands allowed and the

¶39

respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in

¶40

the event of their arrest in connection with the above crime,

¶41

on condition of each 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:

¶42

(i) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. for two months and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶43

(ii) The petitioners shall not intimidate or

¶44

Case No. BA 4873/19

¶45

-5-

¶46

influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

¶47

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

¶48

Needless to state that this court has not made any observation with regard to the merits of the case and the observation, if any, made in this order was only for the purpose of disposing of this application.

¶49

¶50

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .

¶51

dl/

Abdul Nizar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Nizar 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

Chellappan Vs State of Kerala

Chellappan, S/O.Paulo, Vs State of Kerala

Mathew @ Thankachan Vs State of Kerala

Ali.T.M. Vs State of Kerala

Elsa J Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shereef Vs State of Kerala