Dismissed

Muhammed Sharafudheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Oct 2020Bail Appl./4448/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail in a criminal breach of trust case involving alleged siphoning of funds. The judge held that since essential books were taken by the accused, custody is needed for investigation and recovery, making this an unfit case for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; applicant directed to surrender for investigation.

Muhammed Sharafudheen 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 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 9TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.4448 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 590/2020 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT,MANJERI

¶7

CRIME NO.28/2020 OF Nilambur Police Station , Malappuram

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

MUHAMMED SHARAFUDHEEN

¶10

AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, CHEENIKKAL, VALIYATTA, THUVVUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679327.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

3 UNNIKRISHNAN

¶16

S/O.SARINJINIAMMA, UK HOUSE, PUNNAPPALA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679328.

¶17

R1-R2 BY SRI.SANTHOSH PETER,SR PP R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Bail Appl.No.4448 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Dated this the 1st day of October 2020

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶25

The applicant is the sole accused in Crime No.28/2020 of Nilambur Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 418 of the I.P.C.

¶26

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the applicant, who was an employee in the Billing Section of the defacto complainant’s firm, “UK Lotteries” at Nilambur, during the period 27.05.2019 to 28.12.2019, committed criminal breach of trust and siphoned out huge sums of money from the firm since the de facto

¶27

complainant was not able to manage the affairs of the

¶28

firm personally for health reasons. The other

¶29

employees of the de facto complainant in the other branches across the State of Kerala, were also

¶30

similarly involved in cheating and misappropriation. It is also stated that all the accused in the connected

¶31

Bail Appl.No.4448 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

crimes were inter-connected in siphoning out money from

¶34

the firm’s account. The applicant herein allegedly resigned the job one day and left the office without prior permission of the de facto complainant, taking

¶35

with him all the books and bills necessary for accounting and corrupting the computers, leaving the

¶36

firm in dire straits. It was only after much difficulty, with the help of a Chartered Accountant,

¶37

that the loss to the firm was modestly assessed at Rs.5,70,000/-.

¶38

The applicant states that the allegations of the prosecution are not true and that he was doing his job in a very honest and upright manner, and that the de

¶39

facto complainant was involved in businesses with fictitious accounts and which the applicant could not stand by. That is the reason why he left the services of the firm. The firm does not have a proper accounting system. The applicant is no way responsible for the alleged offence and prays that he may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶40

Bail Appl.No.4448 OF 2020

¶41

¶42

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and

¶43

the defacto complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶44

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case as also the objection and the documents produced by the defacto complainant in support of his argument, I observe that the applicant has siphoned out huge sums of money which is yet to be accounted. The books and other records necessary for making an assessment of the misappropriation is not readily available to the prosecution. Ordinarily, the arrest is a part of the procedure of investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also for several other purposes. Verifying the accounts and

¶45

books, allegedly taken away by the applicant may have to be reclaimed and is an essential process for an investigation. Custodial interrogation in such cases is most essential and anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy which definitely cannot be granted in such matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in

¶46

Bail Appl.No.4448 OF 2020

¶47

¶48

Chidambaram T. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2019 KHC

¶49

6886 held that being an extraordinary remedy, the remedy under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised

¶50

only sparingly more so in the economic offences. Under the above circumstances, I find that this is not a fit case where the applicant can be granted pre-arrest bail. He has to cooperate with the investigation, for which he has to surrender.

¶51

In the result, the application is dismissed and the

¶52

applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. The

¶53

investigating officer shall, after interrogation and recovery, if any, shall produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate, where he is at liberty to

¶54

apply for regular bail, and the Magistrate shall consider and dispose of the same preferably on the very same day.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

Muhammed Sharafudheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sharafudheen 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

S Praveen Vs State of Kerala

Gopakumar Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Gopinath Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Nazim K.S Vs State of Kerala

Shihana.S Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Shahid Vs State of Kerala