Allowed

Shareef P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Dec 2020Bail Appl./5440/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail filed by two accused persons charged with cheating and forgery. The court directed them to surrender within two weeks and execute a bond under specific conditions pending investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks and release on bail upon execution of bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- each with sureties.

Shareef P 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

FRIDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.5440 OF 2020

¶5

CRIME NO.343/2020 OF Kottayam West Police Station, Kottayam

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SHAREEF P AGED 32 YEARS SON OF MOHAMMED M HUSTHAFA. P, POOVALLOOR HOUSE, MANGATTUPULAM, KODUR P.O., MALAPPURAM 676504 2 ABDUL ASHIF P K AGED 32 YEARS S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY P. K., PICHAN KUNNASSERRY HOUSE, WEST KODUR, KODUR PO, MALAPPURAM 676504 BY ADV. SRI.R.RANJITH (MANJERI)

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682031 2 AKSHAY. R. AGED 26 YEARS S/O. REGHUVARAN, EDAYARANTHAYIL HOUSE, NEAR SHANMUGHAVILASAM HIGH SCHOOL, KLAPPANA NORTH, KLAPPALA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM 696504 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI -PP

¶10

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

Bail Appl..No.5440 OF 2020

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Dated this the 4th day of December 2020

¶15

This is an application filed under Section 438

¶16

of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail.

¶17

The applicants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.343/2020 of Kottayam West Police Station, Kottaym, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the

¶19

applicants were allegedly running an educational institution by the name AID Education, Adam Tower, MC Road, Kottayam and the de facto complainant was issued a completion certificate in BBA course from the Madurai Kamaraj University within six months. The applicants were allegedly paid Rs.10,000/- on 20.02.2018 and Rs.33,000/- on 24.02.2020 for the alleged certificate and accordingly they had forged a fraudulent hall ticket and issued the

¶20

Bail Appl..No.5440 OF 2020

¶21

¶22

same to the de facto complainant and he was made

¶23

to write an examination on the basis of such hall ticket at Kottayam. However, he was never issued any final certificate of qualifying the BBA degree course and the money was also not returned and therefore he filed a complaint before the police and in consequence of which the crime was registered.

¶24

The applicants state that the branch of

¶25

their institution is at Parappanangadi affiliated to the Madurai Kamaraj University for their branch in Parappanangadi. It is however admitted that there was no separate recognition for their branch in Kottayam. But all their transactions with the university were conducted through their affiliated branch at Parappanangadi. It is also stated that the de facto complainant had joined the course for

¶26

BBA on 21.12.2015 and he did appear for the examination for the first two years. However he

¶27

Bail Appl..No.5440 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

could not appear for the third year examination and left for the gulf country. On his return from

¶30

the gulf, he sought permission to write the examination and insisted on publication of result along with his batch mates or in the alternative to refund the amount received from him. The

¶31

applicants were not prepared to refund the amount since the amount was already transmitted to the Madurai Kamaraj University and therefore, the complaint was filed. It is further stated that the enquiries with the Kamaraj University had revealed that the registration number allotted to the de facto complainant was actually pertaining to another student by name Sruthy and not in the name of the applicant. The de facto complainant was thus given a fictitious number by the applicants. It is also stated that the application on the de

¶32

facto complainant was not received by the University and therefore, a clear case of

¶33

Bail Appl..No.5440 OF 2020

¶34

fraudulent transaction and issuance of fake hall

¶35

ticket is made out against the applicants and they were proceeded against.

¶36

applicants and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

has already been shut down and all the documents pertaining to the functioning of that center has been seized by the police. The applicants have produced the individual student details which were issued to the de facto complainant in his name on 31.12.2015, which indicates the enrollment number.

¶38

It is also stated that no student by the name Sruthy was registered from their center. But the document issued from the University indicates

¶39

that, that student was registered from Parappanangadi, which the applicants state in the

¶40

enrollment number issued to the de facto complainant. Hence, there is some confusion which

¶41

Bail Appl..No.5440 OF 2020

¶42

needs to be clarified and further investigation in that regard is necessary. But it is an admitted fact that no other student who had enrolled along with the de facto complainant had any complaint about the applicants. They did not raise any complaints regarding issuance of fake certificates or hall tickets nor did they state that they did not get their certificate of qualification. Under the circumstance, the complaint raised by the de facto complainant is a solitary complaint which has been raised and according to the applicants, something has gone wrong in the administrative side of the University which indicated that two persons namely Sruthy and the de facto complainant were registered on the same enrollment number. There is no possibility for that according to the applicants who state that no student by the name Sruthy had got registered from their institution.

¶43

The applicants do not have any criminal

¶44

Bail Appl..No.5440 OF 2020

¶45

antecedents and custodial interrogation of the applicants may be not necessary. They are willing to co-operate with the investigation.

¶46

The learned Prosecutor has pointed out that despite having been issued a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C, the applicants did not appear. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants would state that they did not appear because of apprehension of arrest.

¶47

In the result he application is allowed and the applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks, and after interrogation in the event of their being

¶48

arrested, they shall be released on bail on execution of bonds for Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) each with two solvent sureties for the like amount each to the satisfaction of the

¶49

investigating officer and on the following conditions;

¶50

Bail Appl..No.5440 OF 2020

¶51

i. They shall not tamper with evidence, influence

¶52

or intimidate witnesses.

¶53

ii.They shall appear before the investigating officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m and 12 noon for a period of two months or till filing of the final report whichever is earlier.

¶54

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

¶55

In the event of violating the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail before the jurisdictional

court.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

spk

Shareef P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shareef P 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

Chris Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Thasleem Vs State of Kerala

Jaaz Nalil Pothen Vs State of Kerala

Jishnu @Manikandan Vs State of Kerala

Bhargavi Amma Vs State of Kerala

Biju Kumar Vs State of Kerala