Dismissed

Albin Abraham, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2020Bail Appl./3161/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 420 IPC, the court directed the petitioner to surrender within two weeks and produce documents to prove money was used for college admission, denying pre-arrest bail at that stage. Full Bench W.P.(C) No.9400/2020 was relied upon regarding imprisonment term. Relief denied and directions issued.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail denied; petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and produce documents.

Albin Abraham, Vs 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

THURSDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.3161 OF 2020

¶6

IN CRIME NO.900/2019 OF PUTHENCRUZE POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ALBIN ABRAHAM, AGED 40 YEARS, CHUNGATHIL (H), MUVATTUPUZHA KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31

¶12

2 ADDL.R2 ANANDGEETHUKUNNEL, KUNNEL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O, KOTTAYAM 686562. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.06.2020 IN CRL.M.A. NO.1/2020

¶13

R2 BY ADV. GEORGE MATHEW

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.AMJAD ALI – SR. PP

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

B.A.No.3161 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 09^th day of July, 2020

¶21

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶22

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.900 of 2019 of Puthencruze Police Station, Ernakulam, for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The prosecution case in brief is thus:

¶23

The petitioner had allegedly, dishonestly, induced the defacto complainant, who is the additional 2^nd respondent herein, to deliver a sum of Rs.7,00,193/- to the defacto complainant for the purpose of arranging a job visa to him in Malta, and it is stated that the amounts were transferred to the account of the petitioner by bank transfer and after having received the amount, the petitioner appropriated the amount for himself and never arranged for the job as promised by him.

¶24

The petitioner would contend that the arrangement was for getting admission in a college, in Malta, for the course of Hotel Management and accordingly, after paying the amount to

¶25

B.A.No.3161 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

the college, a notice was sent to the defacto complainant for admission in the college. But, unfortunately, the defacto complainant did not respond to that notice, which is produced as Annexure-2, and therefore, the admission got cancelled because of the default of the part of the defacto complainant. And therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the loss of money, alleges the petitioner. The defacto complainant appears through counsel and filed a counter affidavit, stating that the petitioner is a diploma holder in Hotel Management and was employed in Ernakulam, but he is also married and has a son aged 8 years, who is an Autistic child. The defacto complainant wanted to seek better prospects in Malta and therefore, approached the petitioner, for a job in Malta, which he was made to believe and in accordance with that, the sums were transferred to the petitioner's account, which the petitioner appropriated, but did not arranged for the job as promised and thus cheated him.

¶28

After having heard both sides and the learned Public Prosecutor, I find that the petitioner is to produce certain documents pertaining to the transfer of money to the

¶29

B.A.No.3161 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

college/university at Malta, in order to prove that the amount was not appropriated by him and it's only on production of those documents, can the investigation proceed. For that purpose, he will have to co-operate with the investigation. And therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to a pre arrest bail at this stage. The petitioner is therefore, directed to surrender before the Investigation Officer within two weeks, and after interrogation and production of documents, if any, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court and apply for regular bail, which shall be considered by the jurisdictional court on its merits. Keeping in view, the Full Bench decision of this Court, in W.P.(C) No.9400/2020(suo motu), and the fact that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is punishable only with imprisonment upto 7 years.

¶32

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶33

NR/09/07/20

Albin Abraham, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Albin Abraham, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Nishad, Vs State of Kerala

Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Moideen Jaisal K. Vs the State of Kerala

Irshad K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Shinoy E.K., Vs State of Kerala

Ashique Vs State of Kerala