Allowed

Muhammed Shereef v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2019Bail Appl./5167/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two accused persons tried on charges of cheating, criminal breach of trust, and forgery. The Court observed that custodial interrogation was not necessary as the material evidence had already been seized by the police and an interim order was justified considering the relationship between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on security of Rs. 40,000 each with equal sureties, conditioned to report to IO every Saturday and not tamper with investigation.

Muhammed Shereef 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.5167 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.163/CR/EOW 111 /2017 OF CBCID, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 MUHAMMED SHEREEF AGED 55 YEARS S/O. LATE KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, PADHUR HOUSE, THEKKIL POST AND VILLAGE, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

2 KUNHIMAHIM MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED 48 YEARS S/O. LATE KUNHIMAHIN HAJI, PADHUR HOUSE, THEKKIL POST AND VILLAGE, VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.ANUSHA P SIVANANDAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

2 ADDL.R2AHAMMED NIZAR.K.M AGED 41, S/O LATE. T.B.KUNJIMAHIN HAJI, PADHOOR HOUSE, THEKKIL PO, CHATTANCHAL, KASARGOD, NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO.M-77, DIAMOND DISTRICT APARTMENT, OLD AIRPORT ROAD, KODIHALLY, BANGALORE-560008.

¶15

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.07.2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA 5167/2019.

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

Bail Appl..No.5167 OF 2019

¶18

BY ADVS.

¶19

SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SMT.V.SREEJA,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

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

¶23

Bail Appl..No.5167 OF 2019

¶24

-: 3 :-

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No. 163/CR/EOW 111/KKD/2017 of Crime Branch, Kozhikode. The offences alleged are punishable under Sections 420, 406, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶27

The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners and the other accused forged the signature of the deceased father of the petitioners and transferred three Cars to the name of the 2nd accused. The father of the petitioners died in the year 2013. The de facto complainant is the brother of the petitioners.

¶28

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

¶29

Heard.

¶30

-: 4 :-

¶31

Bail Appl..No.5167 OF 2019

¶32

It has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that all the three Cars and the documents pertaining to the transactions involved in this case have been already seized by the police. In the said circumstances, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case, is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the relationship between the parties, I am of the view that an order under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners will be justified in this case.

¶33

In the result, this application stands allowed, and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with the above said crime, 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

¶34

-: 5 :-

¶35

Bail Appl..No.5167 OF 2019

¶36

within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime, and subject to the following further conditions:-

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/-B.Sudheendra Kumar, Judge

¶41

ani/

¶42

/true copy/

Muhammed Shereef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shereef 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

Abdul Nizar Vs State of Kerala