Allowed

Noushad v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Oct 2019Bail Appl./5961/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to the 2nd accused in a cheating case. The Court held that custodial interrogation is not necessary and ordered the appearance for interrogation and subsequent bail on bond.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is allowed. The applicant must appear for interrogation; if arrested, he shall be released on bail on a bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Noushad 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 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5961 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.140/2019 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

NOUSHAD AGED 43 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED, APPAKANDAN HOUSE, ANAPPARA, KARAKODE, VAZHIKKADAVU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SMT.S.K.SREELAKSHMY

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

(CRIME NO.140/2019 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.)

¶13

2 ADDL.R2 ABU THAHIR, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMED HUSSAIN, PUTTURA, KODANNIRAMPALLI HOUSING COLONY, LAKSHM VEEDU, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678014.

¶14

3 ADDL.R3 ABU THAHIR, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O MAYTHUNNIKUTTI, PILAKKAL HOUSE, THIRUTHIKATTIL, AKALAD, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680506.

¶15

4 ADDL.R4 MAUHAMMED MUNZIR, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O HAMEED, CHERUPUZHAKKAL HOUSE, THANUR, KORAMAN KADAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN676302.

¶16

5 ADDL.R5 MUHAMMED RAFI, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O MAJEED, KUNHINTEPURAKKAL HOUSE, THAHA BEACH, THANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676302.

¶17

Bail Appl..No.5961 OF 2019

¶18

¶19

6 ADDL.R6 SAHANIS, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O SIDDIQUE, MUNNODIKKAL HOUSE, KOOTTAYI KADAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676562.

¶20

7 ADDL.R7 SAJEER, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O SHERIF, KANDALATH HOUSE, AKALAD, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680506.

¶21

8 ADDL.R8 SHIHABUDHEEN, AGED 37 YEARS,S/O AHAMMEDKUTTY, ALANGADAN HOUSE, EDAVANNA, KUNDUTHODU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676541.

¶22

9 ADDL.R9 BASIL AGED 23 YEARS, S/O ABDUL BASHEER, EDASSERIKUNDU, POOKOTTUMPADAM, VATTAPADAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679332.

¶23

ADDITIONAL R2 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/8/2019 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2019 IN BA5961/2019.

¶24

SRI RAMESH CHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶25

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

Bail Appl..No.5961 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

The applicant herein is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.140 of 2019 of the Wandoor Police Station registered on 26.07.2019 under Section 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

According to the prosecution, the applicant along with one Abdu Rahman and Hameed persuaded the informant and his friends to believe that they would be offered job at Dubai and received a sum of Rs.1 lakh each. Out of the said amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited in the account of the 1^st accused and a sum of Rs.80,000/- was allegedly handed over to the applicant herein.

¶32

Sri.P.Samsudin, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has nothing to do with the 1^st accused. According to the learned counsel, the applicant had mediated to bring about a settlement and nothing more.

¶33

As directed by this Court the informant and other victims were impleaded and notice was issued to them. Though the same was served they have not cared to enter appearance.

¶34

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the materials made available. Having regard to the nature of allegations,

¶35

Bail Appl..No.5961 OF 2019

¶36

¶37

I am of the view, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required for an effective investigation.

¶38

In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶39

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶40

ii) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

¶41

iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while on bail.

¶42

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶45

IAP

Noushad v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Noushad 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

Mohanan K Vs State of Kerala

Sreelesh Vs the State of Kerala

Greesh P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Jithinraj.v.J, Vs State of Kerala

Sreeraj Sreenivas M.S. Vs State of Kerala

Sarathlal.T.P Vs State of Kerala