Allowed

Safiya Abdulla v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2019Bail Appl./9067/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed anticipatory bail to an accused in a bank fraud case. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as liability registers and documents corroborated submissions regarding unauthorized transfer of loan liability, ordering future interrogation after bail grant.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of appearing for investigation and refraining from inducement or new offences.

Safiya Abdulla Vs State of Kerala — Corruption | 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 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 9067 of 2017

¶6

****[CRIME NO. 234/2016] OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, Kasargod**

¶7

**CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS CRIME NO.236 OF 2016 AS PER ORDER DATED 11.1.2018 IN CRL.M.A. NO.307 OF 2018

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SAFIYA ABDULLA, W/O.ABDULLAH, BISHRATH MANZIL, NAIMARAMOOLA.P.O., VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682 031. (CRIME NO.236/2016 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION)

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, KASARAGODE DISTRICT -671 121. (CRIME NO.236/2016 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION) KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶14

**** ADDL.R3 SECRETARY, MUTTATHODY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.336, NAIRMARMOOLA BRANCH, P.O.VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD-671123.**

¶15

**** ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6.2.2018 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1241 OF 2018.**

¶16

BY ADV.SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI

¶17

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AJITH MURALI

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA:9067/2017

ORDER

This application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

The applicant herein is the accused No.28 in Crime No.236 of 2016 of the Vidyanagar Police Station registered on the basis of information furnished by the 3^rd respondent. The offences alleged are under Sections 406, 409, 420, 120(b), 465, 468, 471 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. In the course of investigation, the investigation of the case was made over to the CBCID.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that the 1^st accused in the aforesaid crime is the Manager, Evening Branch of the Muttathody Service Co-operative Bank, Naimmarmoola Branch and the 2^nd accused is the gold appraiser. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy with customers of the Bank and disbursed gold loans for a sum of Rs.3,70,62,766/- on the strength of spurious gold ornaments.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the allegations insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are untrue. According to the learned counsel, the husband of the applicant, Sri.Abdulla Kunhi K.M., had pledged certain gold ornaments in two accounts with the complainant Bank on 5.8.2015 and availed loans for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- and Rs.3,13,000/- respectively. Later, the

¶26

BA:9067/2017

¶27

¶28

husband of the applicant met with an accident and was completely bed ridden. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 and others, for and on behalf of the bank, approached the applicant and her signature was obtained in some documents by assuring her that medical insurance would be provided. Later, she was served with demand notice alleging that huge sums of money were due from the accused from two loan accounts namely, ‘419910’ and ‘419911’, for a sum of Rs.3,25,000/and Rs.3,13,000/-. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner herein had not availed gold loan from the bank and with devious intent the liability was fraudulently transferred to her name by the bank by obtaining her signature.

¶29

The learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, submitted that a meticulous investigation was conducted by the CBCID and it was revealed that the applicant herein along with several other customers had pledged fake gold ornaments in the Bank and had realised huge sums of money. Investigation is in the early stages and if the applicant is armed with an order of pre-arrest bail, it would adversely affect the investigation, contends the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

In the nature of contentions advanced by the learned counsel, the applicant was ordered to implead the Secretary of the Muttathody

¶31

BA:9067/2017

¶32

¶33

Service Co-operative Bank as additional respondent. The Secretary has filed a statement before this Court and he has also produced the liability registers in respect of the applicant as well as her husband Sri. Abdulla Kunhi K.M. It appears from Exhibit-R3(b), the liability register of Sri. Abdulla Kunhi K.M., that two loans were availed by him for Rs.3,25,000/- and Rs.3,13,000/- and the said loans were closed on 12.3.2016. On the same day itself, fresh loan is seen to have been availed by the applicant herein for the exact amount, which is Rs.3,25,000/- and Rs.3,13,000/-. These records would show that there is some merit in the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. Even otherwise, as the records are all borne out by documents, the custodial interrogation of the applicant does not appear to be necessary.

¶34

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 she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:

¶35

i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every

¶36

BA:9067/2017

¶37

¶38

Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.

¶39

ii) She 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.

¶40

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

¶41

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.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

KRJ

¶46

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

Safiya Abdulla v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Safiya Abdulla 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

Praveen.S.T Vs State of Kerala

Thomaskutty & Others Vs State of Kerala & Another

K.L.Prakash Vs South Indian Bank &Another

Rajeswary Vs Chellappan

Naseer Vs the Station House Officer

Joshy, Vs the State of Kerala