Allowed

Alavi M a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2020Bail Appl./5281/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the applicant accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. The court noted the applicant's clean antecedents, age, and attempt to refund the amount. Bail was allowed subject to surrender, appearance, and specific conduct conditions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed; applicant directed to surrender within two weeks and provide a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Alavi M a 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.5281 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.1094/2020 OF West Circle Police Station, Thrissur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

ALAVI M A AGED 58 YEARS S/O. MOHAMED KUTTI MALATH HOUSE THEKUMKARA, THEKUMKARA P.O., WADAKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680589

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.S.SARATH SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER AGED 30 YEARS THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR CITY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680003

¶13

Bail Appl..No.5281 OF 2020

¶14

¶15

3 GEETHU ANOOP AGED 45 YEARS W/O. ANOOP; RESIDING AT: VARIYAMPATT HOUSE, VARIYAM LINE, THIRUVAMBADI, THRISSUR WEST THRISSUR DISTRICT 680022

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SR PP THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

3 ORDER

¶19

Bail Appl..No.5281 OF 2020

¶20

Dated this the 11th day of November 2020

¶21

This is an application filed under Section

¶22

438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶23

Applicant is the sole accused in Crime

¶24

No.1094/2020 of Town West Police Station, Thrissur

¶25

for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

¶26

The prosecution case, in brief, is that

¶27

during the month of June 2016, the applicant dishonestly induced the defacto complainant to deliver a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to him, promising

¶28

to arrange a job for her husband. He was not able to do that. Consequently, he returned a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash and issued a cheque for the balance amount. The cheque amount has not yet been

¶29

realized and hence, the defacto complainant raised a complaint.

¶30

The applicant states that he is innocent

¶31

Bail Appl..No.5281 OF 2020

¶32

4 and the allegations are not true. It is stated

¶33

that he had no intention to deceive the defacto complainant and that is demonstrated by his return of the amount and issuance of cheque. It is also submitted that the incident took place in the year 2016 and more than three years have elapsed. The application for anticipatory bail filed before the

¶34

Session's court was dismissed. The applicant therefore seeks indulgence of this Court for Anticipatory Bail.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant

¶36

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

The defacto complainant did not appear

¶38

though served with notice. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no criminal antecedents, he is 58 years old and he is willing to abide by any conditions imposed, and

¶39

going by the prosecution allegation, offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are not attracted.

¶40

After having considered the submissions

¶41

Bail Appl..No.5281 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

made on either sides, I find that the applicant is a person without any criminal antecedents, he is 58 years old and he has made an earnest attempt to refund the amount which he had admittedly received from the defacto complainant. He did not understand whether the cheque which was issued by him was presented for collection or not. In case it is a money transaction, it is time barred the limitation. The prosecution is under obligation to prove that there was dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction only when the offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC was attracted. Considering the antecedents of the applicant, the present pandemic situation, and the aforesaid circumstances in this case, I do not find it necessary for incarcerating the applicant.

¶44

The application for anticipatory bail is

¶45

allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of his being

¶46

Bail Appl..No.5281 OF 2020

¶47

6 arrested, he shall be released on bail on

¶48

execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶49

investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶50

influence or intimidate witnesses.

¶51

ii. He shall appear before the investigating

¶52

officer as and when called for.

¶53

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

¶54

In the event of violating the bail conditions,

¶55

the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

SPK

Alavi M a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alavi M a 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

T P Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Raji Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Akhil P R Vs State of Kerala

State Bank of India Vs Arun Aravindan Nair

Manoj Radhakrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Vs State of Kerala