Allowed

Sidheeque Pappali v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2020Bail Appl./1605/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Ashok Menon allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for an accused charged with cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court found that the maximum imprisonment is seven years, detention is not necessary for interrogation, and the petitioner has no antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner to surrender before IO within two weeks; bond for Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

Sidheeque Pappali Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.1605 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 132/2020 DATED 19-022020 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.15/2020 OF Kalpakanchery Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

SIDHEEQUE PAPPALI AGED 46 YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY, PAPPALI HOUSE, KUTTIPPALA P.O., PERUMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KALPAKANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3 ADDL.R3 SHIJU KUMAR AGED 37 YEARS S/O KANNANKUTTY, CHAKKANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAPPURAM, VENNIYOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676508.

¶15

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A NO. 1/2020

¶16

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.T.SHEEJISH

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.SANTHOSH PETER SR PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA 1605/20

-2-

ORDER

Dated this the 22^nd day of July 2020

¶24

This is an application filed under Section 438 of

¶25

Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶26

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime

¶27

No.15/2020 of Kalpakanchery Police Station, Malappuram for having allegedly committed offence punishable under

¶28

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶29

The prosecution case in brief is that, between 25.12.2019 and 08.12.2020, a tata mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-55-E/9916 belonging to the defacto complainant was entrusted to the petitioner and was

¶30

parked in the car porch of the petitioner's house and without the consent of the defacto complainant, the

¶31

vehicle was allegedly sold to a person named Kamarudheen and thus the defacto complainant was cheated. The petitioner states that he is innocent and

¶32

the allegations are false and frivolous. The defacto complainant had allegedly purchased the vehicle on hire purchase and having defaulted payment of the monthly

¶33

BA 1605/20

¶34

-3-

¶35

installments, to realise the arrears, the hirer may

¶36

have taken possession of the vehicle, for which the petitioner is not responsible.

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶38

Learned counsel for the defacto complainant

¶39

appears and vehemently objects to the granting of bail.

¶40

The petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation. He has no antecedents. Under the circumstances, I find that detention of the petitioner

¶41

for the purpose of interrogation is not necessary, particularly because of the pandemic situation and the

¶42

Full Bench decision of this Court in W.P.(C)

¶43

No.9400/2020, that the offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with imprisonment only upto seven years. Hence the petitioner is entitled to a prearrest bail.

¶44

In the result, the petition is allowed and

¶45

the petitioner is directed to surrender before the

¶46

investigating officer within two weeks, and after

¶47

interrogation in the event of his being arrested, he

¶48

BA 1605/20

¶49

-4-

¶50

shall be released on bail on execution of bond for

¶51

Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two

¶52

solvent sureties for the like amount each to the

¶53

satisfaction of the investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶54

intimidate witnesses.

¶55

iii. He shall not get involved in similar offences during the bail period.

¶56

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the

¶57

prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for

¶58

cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional Court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

hmh

Sidheeque Pappali v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sidheeque Pappali v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramachandran Palamoottil(H), Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh, Vs State of Kerala

Ananthu Vs Public Prosecutor

Sureshkumar S Vs State of Kerala