Allowed

Abdul Jamal, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Jan 2019Bail Appl./8783/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, who was in custody accused of cheating multiple depositors as a trustee. Bail was conditional upon executing a bond, providing trust property as security via affidavit from a co-trustee, surrendering the passport, and filing an affidavit within 15 days. Appeals against rejection were not decided as they did not arise.

What did the court decide?

Order of bail granted on conditions including bond execution, security charging of trust property via affidavit, and surrender of passport.

Abdul Jamal, 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 SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 8804 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 3981/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO. 949/2018 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶8

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶9

ABDUL JAMAL S/O. MUHAMMED, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, CHIRANELLUR DESOM AND VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, P.O. CHIRANELLUR, PIN-680501.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8764/2018 & Bail Appl..8783/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

B.A. Nos.8804, 8783 & 8764 of 2018

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶20

WEDNESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 8764 of 2018

¶22

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRMP 3983/2018 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KUNNAMKULAM DATED 11-12-2018

¶23

CRIME NO. 1097/2018 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶24

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶25

ABDUL JAMAL S/O.MUHAMMED, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, CHIRANELLUR DESOM AND VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, P.O.CHIRANELLUR, PIN-680501

¶26

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶27

RESPONDENT:

¶28

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶29

PP RAMESH CHAND

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8804/2018, Bail Appl..8783/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

B.A. Nos.8804, 8783 & 8764 of 2018

¶32

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶36

WEDNESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 10TH MAGHA, 1940

¶37

Bail Appl..No. 8783 of 2018

¶38

CRIME NO. 1004/2018 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶39

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶40

ABDUL JAMAL, S/O. MUHAMMED, KARUPPAMVEETTIL HOUSE, CHIRANELLUR DESOM AND VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. P.O. CHIRANELLUR, PIN 680501

¶41

BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶42

RESPONDENT:

¶43

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶44

2 ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED K.A.MUHAMMED, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.ENU, KARANGAL VEEDU, PANNITHADAM DESOM, MARATHAMKODE VIA, KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 604. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11/01/2019 IN CRL.MA.NO.01/2018)

¶45

BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN

¶46

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..8804/2018, Bail Appl..8764/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

B.A. Nos.8804, 8783 & 8764 of 2018

¶48

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

Petitioner stands arrayed as the 1^st accused in Crime Nos.949/2018, 1004/2018 & 1097/2018 of Kunnamkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The common allegation in all the crimes is that the petitioner, who is the Chairman of a Trust had deceived the respective de facto complainants by accepting deposits and without repaying it even after the stipulated time. Deposits have been received by the Chairman, for the Trust. Deposit bonds were executed by the Chairman of the Trust, who is the petitioner herein. Even after expiry of its maturity period, the amounts were not repaid. Alleging that the petitioner has cheated the de facto complainants, complaints were laid, which resulted in the registration

¶51

of crimes. Petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2018 and is in custody since then. He seeks bail.

¶52

B.A. Nos.8804, 8783 & 8764 of 2018

¶53

¶54

2. It is reported that altogether 15

¶55

crimes of similar nature have been registered against the petitioner. Investigation is

¶56

progressing. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was granted bail by the Magistrate Court in some of the criminal

¶57

cases. The de facto complainant in Crime No.1004/2018 appeared through counsel and opposed the application for bail. Definitely, by detaining the petitioner for a longer period, I do not think that it may augment the interest of the depositors. At the same time, if the bail is to be granted, definitely it

¶58

should ensure that the interest of the depositors are also protected. However, it seems that the interest of the depositors is also paramount. Accordingly, the petitioner has offered the trust property as security and an affidavit has been affirmed by his wife asserting that the property can be offered as security towards the liabilities arising from

¶59

B.A. Nos.8804, 8783 & 8764 of 2018

¶60

¶61

all the crimes. However, the above deponent

¶62

has no authority to affirm on behalf of the Trust.

¶63

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there were three trustees. Among them one has resigned and the other trustee is abroad and has undertaken to file an affidavit offering the above property as

¶64

security for the liabilities arising from this subject matter of the crimes.

¶65

4. Though there is a dispute as to whether the Trust property can be offered as security, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on clause 22 of the trust deed that, for the beneficial interest of the Trust and also in exceptional emergent situation, property can be charged or mortgaged. It was also contended that even without any such contingency, with the permission of 75% of the members, it can be

¶66

B.A. Nos.8804, 8783 & 8764 of 2018

¶67

¶68

mortgaged. Since one trustee has resigned, the remaining trustees are only two in number, including the petitioner herein and co-trustee has undertaken to file an affidavit creating a charge. Since he is abroad, the affidavit can be filed within a stipulated time, it was submitted.

¶69

Having considered these submissions and the objections raised by the learned counsel for the de facto complainant, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner on the following conditions:

¶70

(i) In each of the case, petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of 1,00,000/- (Rupees₹ one lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶71

(ii) The property comprised in deed No.712/2005 which document is seized and produced before the trial court with all the

¶72

B.A. Nos.8804, 8783 & 8764 of 2018

¶73

¶74

buildings and structures thereon shall be charged for the liabilities arising from these crimes. Petitioner shall file an affidavit within 15 working days from the date of execution of the bond.

¶75

(iii) Petitioner shall ensure that the cotrustee also files an affidavit as above within 15 working days offering the above property as

¶76

a security and the charge shall be created over the liability. On filing the affidavit, the trial court shall intimate the Sub Registrar's Office regarding the charge created.

¶77

(iv) Petitioner shall surrender his passport

¶78

within 15 working days from the date of

¶79

execution of the bond and if not, file an affidavit in this regard before the jurisdictional court. However, further directions regarding the release of the passport will be within the jurisdiction of the concerned jurisdictional court.

¶80

B.A. Nos.8804, 8783 & 8764 of 2018

¶81

¶82

(v) He shall appear before the

¶83

Investigating Officer as and when called for. (vi) He shall not threaten, coerce or intimidate the defacto complainants and the witnesses nor shall he interfere in the process of investigation.

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

¶86

Pn 30/01

Abdul Jamal, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jamal, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alphonse Perera Vs Maneesha

Krishnadas Vs Prakasan

Jhonson Vs Prabhakaran

Abdul Jamal, Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Jamal Vs State of Kerala

Riyas Hussain, Vs State of Kerala