Allowed

Vachaprath Fayaz, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Aug 2019Bail Appl./5451/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application in a case involving cheating and breach of trust was allowed. The High Court held that pre-arrest bail should be granted as custodial interrogation was not considered necessary since all documents were seized and no recovery was to be effected from the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were granted pre-arrest bail on the condition of executing a bond for Rs.40,000 each with two solvent sureties and subject to additional conditions of reporting to the I.O. and not tam

Vachaprath Fayaz, 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

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5451 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.305/2017 OF Valappatanam Police Station , Kannur

¶7

PETITIONERS/2ND AND ERD ACCUSED:

¶8

1 VACHAPRATH FAYAZ, AGED 34 YEARS S/O.ABDULLA, SUMAYYA MANZIL, NEAR K.C.PUMP, PAPPINISSERY WEST P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2 NASIYATH VACHAPRATH, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED ASHRAF.M., SHANAS, ILLIPURAM, PAPPINISSERY WEST P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.I.V.PRAMOD SRI.K.V.SASIDHARAN SMT.SAIRA SOURAJ P.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶12

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

¶13

2 B.T.MANZOOR, PRESIDENT IN CHARGE, VALAPPATANAM CO-OPERATIVE BANK, VALAPPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

SMT.V.SREEJA,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R2, SRI.RAJESH SUKUMARAN K

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

Bail Appl..No.5451 OF 2019

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioners are accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No.305/2017 of Valapattanam Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶20

The prosecution allegation can be briefly stated thus:

¶21

The first petitioner availed a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) from Valapattanam Co-operative Bank by pledging the property of the second petitioner. The second petitioner had given the power of attorney in favour of the first petitioner. Thereafter, before making payment of the entire amount due to the bank, the first accused

¶22

-3-

¶23

Bail Appl..No.5451 OF 2019

¶24

executed release deed in respect of the property involved in this case.

¶25

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

¶26

Heard.

¶27

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶28

that the first accused was already arrested and thereafter, he was released on bail, after his judicial detention. All the documents have been already seized, submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor. It appears that no recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary in this case. In the circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-

¶29

arrest bail to the petitioners.

¶30

-4-

¶31

Bail Appl..No.5451 OF 2019

¶32

In the result, this bail application stands allowed and the 1^st respondent is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in 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 within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶33

The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶34

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

¶35

-5-

¶36

Bail Appl..No.5451 OF 2019

¶37

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

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

Nkr/22.08.19

Vachaprath Fayaz, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vachaprath Fayaz, 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

Irshadali Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Kunju @ Kalam Ani Vs State of Kerala

Manju.P.T Vs State of Kerala

Roy @ Compan Roy Vs State of Kerarla

Jayakumar C.L @ Jiji Vs S.I of Police

M.G.John Vs Sub Inspector of Police