The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, granted pre-arrest bail to the first accused in a cheating case under Sections 406, 420, and 34 IPC, considering the lack of criminal antecedents and directed sureties.
The petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 40,000 with two solvent sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.5232 OF 2019
CRIME NO.43/2017 OF Malappuram Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/S:
SAJU BIN SALIM AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. SALIM, SALIM MANZIL, MANGAMKUZHI P.O, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-690558.
BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.-682031.
2 DR. ABDU RAHMAN, S/O. KOTTUMALA BAPPU MUSALIAR, FALAH MANSIL, KALAMBADY, MALAPPURAM P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT676505.
R2 BY ADV. SHRI.ESM.KABEER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK,PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Case No. BA 5232/19
O R D E R
The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.43 of 2017 of Malappuram Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has submitted that the 2nd accused received a total amount of Rs.62,00,000/- from the
2nd respondent, on the promise that the accused would arrange a medical seat for the 2nd respondent in NIMS Medical College, Jaipur. However, the admission, as
Case No. BA 5232/19
-3-
promised, was not arranged. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid back to the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has submitted that it was the 2nd accused, who had promised the 2nd respondent that the accused would be able to arrange the medical seat for the 2nd respondent. However, the money was transferred through the account of the first accused, who is the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein also executed an agreement undertaking to return the money. The 2nd accused was already granted bail after his arrest and judicial detention. It appears that the petitioner did not make any promise to the 2nd respondent that he would be able to arrange medical seat to the 2nd respondent. It appears that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. That apart, the petitioner has no criminal
Case No. BA 5232/19
-4-
antecedent. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
In the result, this application stands allowed and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the above crime on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. for two months and thereafter, as and when required by the
Case No. BA 5232/19
-5-
Investigating Officer for interrogation.
(ii) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.
(iii) The petitioner shall not get involved in any other offence during the pendency of this case.
sd
B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE .
dl/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted to the petitioner accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Whether the petitioner's lack of criminal antecedents and non-involvement in the primary promise justifies pre-arrest bail.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Saju Bin Salim
State of Kerala
Dr. Abdu Rahman
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
