Allowed

Anu Parambathkandy Mohammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Aug 2020Bail Appl./627/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a bail application filed under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioners were accused of cheating and conspiracy regarding a bank loan where the vehicle was not supplied. Bail was granted on stringent conditions, including interrogation and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed on stringent conditions including appearance for interrogation, bond execution, non-emigration, and abiding by Covid-19 guidelines.

Anu Parambathkandy Mohammed 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.627 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1996/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY

¶7

CRIME NO.998/2019 OF VALAPPATANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 ANU PARAMBATHKANDY MOHAMMED

¶10

AGED 38 YEARS,S/O.M.MOHAMMED UNNI, THANU COTTAGE, POOTHOLE.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680004

¶11

2 MUNSILA S AGED 29 YEARS,D/O.SHAJAHAN.M, SHAJI MANZIL, FAROOK COLLEGE POST, RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE-673632

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND (A-1921) SHRI.ABHILASH JOSEPH

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031(CRIME NO.998/2019, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT)

¶15

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT (CRIME NO.998/2019, VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.AJITH MURALI, PP

¶18

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

B.A.No.627 of 2020

¶20

¶21

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

=================== B.A.No.627 of 2020

¶23

===================

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2020

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of

¶27

Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video

¶28

Conference.

¶29

The petitioners are accused in Crime No. 998 of 2019 of Valapattanam Police Station, Kannur District. The above case is registered against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶30

The prosecution case is that, the petitioners are partners of Vibrant Automotive. The firm availed a loan of Rs. 36 lakhs from State Bank of India, Puthiyatheru Branch, Kannur for purchasing a car. The bank directly transfered the amount to the dealer. The prosecution case

¶31

B.A.No.627 of 2020

¶32

¶33

is that, even now the documents of the vehicle is not produced before the bank. Therefore, a complainant is filed by the Manager, State Bank of India, Puthiyatheru

¶34

Branch to the police and accordingly, this case is posted.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are paying regularly EMI towards the loan account. The dealer has not supplied the car to the petitioners, because of the non availability of that particular model. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, no offences is made out even if the entire allegations are submitted. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, he is ready to abide any conditions, if this Court grants him bail.

¶37

The learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposed the bail application. He submitted that, a false invoice is produced before the bank. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary.

¶38

B.A.No.627 of 2020

¶39

¶40

After hearing both sides, I think this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions. Admittedly, the petitioners availed a loan from bank. The amount is directly transferred to the dealer by the bank. The dealer has not supplied the car to the petitioners, because of the non availability of that particular model. I do not want make any further observations about the merits of the case. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this bail application can be allowed on stringent conditions.

¶41

Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No.1 of 2020) and a Full Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.9400 of 2020 issued various salutary directions for minimizing the number of inmates inside prisons.

¶42

Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble

¶43

B.A.No.627 of 2020

¶44

¶45

Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

¶46

Considering the dictum laid down in the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following directions:

¶47

1. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within three weeks from today and shall undergo interrogation;

¶48

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on bail executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

¶49

B.A.No.627 of 2020

¶50

¶51

3. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required. The petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing

¶52

such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶53

4. The petitioners shall not leave India without permission of the Court;

¶54

5. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶55

6. The petitioners shall strictly abide by the various guidelines issued by the State Government and Central Government with respect to keeping of social distancing in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic;

¶56

B.A.No.627 of 2020

¶57

¶58

If any of the above conditions are violated by the

¶59

petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this

¶60

Court.

¶61

(Sd/-) P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶62