Allowed

Kunjumuhammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2020Bail Appl./4301/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Kunjum Muhammed, accused of cheating by dishonestly inducing delivery of property via a dishonoured cheque under Section 420 IPC, granting anticipatory bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on surrender within two weeks, bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and conditions against intimidation and further offences.

Kunjumuhammed Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4301 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 1161/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PALAKKAD

¶7

CRIME NO.50/2020 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

KUNJUMUHAMMED, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.HAMZA, KOOTATHIL HOUSE, PARAYANGAD, VALLAPUZHA P.O., PATTAMBI TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN-679 336.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.

¶13

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KONGADU POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 631.

¶14

3 ABBAS, S/O.HAMSA, CHAKKINGAL PARAMBIL HOUSE, ARIYANNUR P.O., KADAMBAZHIPPURAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 633.

¶15

B.A.No.4301 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

B JAYASURYA - SR.PP

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

B.A.No.4301 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Dated this the 26th day of November, 2020

¶24

APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL

¶25

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.50 of 2020 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad, for having allegedly committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:

¶26

The applicant had borrowed a sum of Rs.3,10,000/from the defacto complainant/3rd respondent, on 10-03-2019 and towards discharge of that amount, he issued a cheque for Rs.1,80,000/- on 30-08-2019, drawn on Canara Bank, Vallappuzha Branch. Another cheque was also issued by the applicant to the third respondent on 30-11-2019 in relation to the aforesaid transaction. The allegation is that the cheque was dishonoured when presented by the 3^rd respondent before the bank for collection, for the reason that the signature differed. The contention is that the applicant had dishonestly induced the

¶27

B.A.No.4301 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

defacto complainant to deliver the amount with the intention to cheat him and issued cheque with a false signature, knowing fully well that it would be dishonoured. The applicant states that the allegations are not true. It is stated that the 3^rd respondent is a close relative of the applicant and he had earlier taken a Maruthi swift car belonging to the applicant for use and returned the car after a month. Inside the dashboard of that vehicle, the applicant has stored his cheque book from out of which, the defacto complainant stole certain cheque leaves, concocted it and presented it before the bank for collection and it got dishonoured. The defacto complainant who has committed an offence and applicant has not committed any offence as alleged. Hence, it is prayed that he may be granted anticipatory bail. He has no criminal antecedents.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned Public Prosecutor. The defacto complainant did not appear despite being served with notice. The allegation is that the applicant had issued a cheque and it was dishonoured, for the signature on the cheque differed from that of the account holder. The contention is that the applicant

¶31

B.A.No.4301 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

had deliberately put a wrong signature in order to get it dishonoured on that ground, and thereby cheat the defacto complainant. The documents are all before the prosecution. There is no reason for custodial interrogation of the applicant. He has no criminal antecedents. There is no possibility of his absconding or not co-operating with the investigation,

¶34

In the result, the application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. After interrogation, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties, each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and on following further conditions:

¶35

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.

¶36

(ii) He shall not intimidate or influence witnesses and tamper with evidence.

¶37

(iii) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail period.

¶38

B.A.No.4301 OF 2020

¶39

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the

¶40

bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶41

The bail application is allowed.

¶42

Sd/ASHOK MENON JUDGE

¶43

NR/26/11/20

Kunjumuhammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjumuhammed 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

Jobit Vs State of Kerala

Bibin Vs State of Kerala

Roy v Kuruvila Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala

O.Abdul Kareem Alias Kunhani Vs State Fo Kerala

Saji Vs State of Kerala