Allowed

Ummer a.K, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jun 2019Bail Appl./923/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a pre-arrest bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the first accused in a cheating case. Finding no need for custodial interrogation and noting the absence of criminal antecedents, the court granted bail on a bond with two sureties and conditions regarding reporting and non-interference with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs.35,000 with two sureties to report to I.O., not tamper with witnesses, and not commit other offences.

Ummer a.K, 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 B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 923 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 699/2018 OF Gandhinagar Police Station , Kottayam

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

UMMER A.K, AGED 34 YEARS S/O KASIM, ARAKKAL HOUSE, EDAKAZHIYOOR, CHAVAKKAD.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I.OF POLICE, MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION 638 007.

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 ABI.K.S KUNNATHUCHIRAYIL HOUSE, AMARAVATHY, KUMALY, IDUKKI DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT ELAYIDATH HOUSE, VAILOPPALLY NAGAR, PONAKKARA, ERNAKULAM. (ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22/02/2019 IN CRL.MA.02/2019)

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVASIA

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.V.SREEJA,PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A. No. 923 of 2019

-2-

ORDER

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.

¶21

699 of 2018 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

The prosecution allegation is that the

¶25

petitioner and the other accused together collected a total amount of Rs.1,90,000/- from the de-facto complainant by offering a job abroad as a Mechanic to the de-facto complainant. However, he was provided

¶26

with only a cleaning job abroad. Therefore, the defacto complainant came back from abroad after three months. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted

¶27

B.A. No. 923 of 2019

¶28

-3-

¶29

that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. There

¶30

is no allegation that forged Visa was given by the petitioner. It appears that the de-facto complainant had gone abroad on the strength of the Visa provided by the petitioner and the other accused. However, the de-facto complainant contends that he was not provided with the job as a Mechanic as offered by the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in this case. That apart, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

¶31

In the result, this application stands allowed

¶32

and the first respondent is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in the

¶33

B.A. No. 923 of 2019

¶34

-4-

¶35

above said crime, on condition of the petitioner executing a bond for Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties, each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer concerned, before whom the petitioner shall surrender within ten days, if not arrested in the meantime and subject to the following further conditions:

¶36

(a) The petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday between 9.00 am and 11.00 am for one month and thereafter, as and when required by the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶37

(b) The petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses or in any way tamper with the investigation.

-5-

B.A. No. 923 of 2019

Sd/-

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

das

Ummer a.K, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummer a.K, 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

Pratheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Lt.Col. James Wesley Hunt (Retd) Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasack, Vs the Station Hose Officer

Dr. Nishana Kabeer Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Saban.K.v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Ajith George, Vs State of Kerala