Dismissed

Muhammed Sayeed.M.a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2019Bail Appl./6149/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 CrPC regarding alleged forgery, the High Court of Kerala refused pre-arrest bail due to prima facie evidence of involvement but directed the applicant to surrender within 10 days and cooperate with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender within 10 days and cooperate with investigation; regular bail application to be considered expeditiously.

Muhammed Sayeed.M.a 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

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 12TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

BAIL APPL..NO.6149 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMC NO.1104/2019 DATED 07-08-2019 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

CRIME NO.66/2019 OF TOWN POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶8

PETITIONERS / ACCUSED :

¶9

MUHAMMED SAYEED M.A., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.M.A.ABDULLA, R/AT BEVINJA, THEKKIL FERRY.P.O., VIDYANAGER, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TOWN POLICE, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-602031

¶13

BY SRI. SRI RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

BAIL APPL..NO.6149 OF 2019

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

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

¶19

Procedure.

¶20

The applicant herein is an A class PWD contractor. For the purpose of renewing the contract licence, the applicant approached the Syndicate Bank and deposited a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and obtained a fixed deposit. He then forged a deposit receipt resembling the original and produced it before the competent officer of the Public Works Department

¶21

for renewal of his licence. After getting his licence renewed on the strength of the fake receipt, he approached the Syndicate Bank on the next day and closed the Fixed Deposit and appropriated the proceeds. Later, it was revealed that, the security deposit receipt furnished by the applicant for securing a work at Kanhangad was forged. An inquiry was ordered and the security deposit produced for renewal of licence was scrutinized. It was realized that the receipt was a false document. A complaint was lodged by the Superintending Engineer, Kerala PWD before the Police and the subject Crime was registered under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶22

Sri. Kodoth Sridharan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submitted that there is no truth in the allegations leveled

¶23

BAIL APPL..NO.6149 OF 2019

¶24

¶25

against the applicant. According to the learned counsel, the fixed deposit receipt seized from the Bank contains the endorsement of the Engineer concerned and this would reveal that the Engineer had returned the Fixed Deposit receipt to the applicant on 21.07.2018 which was encashed by him.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed the prayer. He would refer to the Case Diary and it is pointed out that the Fixed Deposit receipt, which was seized from the Bank, does not contain the endorsement of the Engineer concerned. He points out that, after obtaining renewal of licence on the strength of a forged receipt, the applicant produced the original receipt retained by him before the Bank and appropriated the proceeds. He would further urge that the applicant is also involved in five other crimes registered on similar allegations.

¶27

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the materials made available. Prima facie, I find that there are some materials pointing to the involvement of the applicant. In that view of the matter, this Court will not be justified in granting an order of pre-arrest bail. However, the entire records have been seized and in that view of the matter, necessary directions can be issued to the applicant to join investigation and co-operate with the same.

¶28

I direct the applicant to surrender before the Investigating

¶29

BAIL APPL..NO.6149 OF 2019

¶30

¶31

officer within 10 days from today and shall undergo interrogation. He shall later be produced before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶32

If an application for regular bail is preferred, the same shall be considered and orders shall be passed expeditiously and on its merits, ideally on the same day itself.

¶33

This application is dismissed.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶36

¶37

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Muhammed Sayeed.M.a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sayeed.M.a 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

Muhammed Rafi Vs the State of Kerala

Ramakrishnamoorthy Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Farooq Vs State of Kerala

Geeson Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu P.U. Vs State of Kerala

Arun Babu Vs State of Kerala