Partly allowed

Salam.M.T.P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2020Bail Appl./7017/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An anticipatory bail petition filed by three accused persons involved in a cheating case where the first accused was in Dubai was allowed in part. The Court directed the first accused to surrender for interrogation before granting bail to the other two ladies.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed in part; first accused directed to surrender for interrogation; second and third applicants released on bail after interrogation with bond and conditions.

Salam.M.T.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 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7017 OF 2020

¶6

CRIME NO.135/2019 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 SALAM.M.T.P., AGED 46 YEARS SON OF ABDUL KHADER, KHADEEJA MANZIL, NEAR KARAMEL JUMA MASJID, ANNUR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT 670307 2 ZAREENA SALAM, AGED 35 YEARS WIFE OF SALAM.M.T.P, KHADEEJA MANZIL, NEAR KARAMEL JUMA MASJID, ANNUR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT 670307 3 AYISHA.S.V., AGED 55 YEARS WIFE OF MOIDEENKUTTY(LATE), S.V.HOUSE,KUZHIKKAD, KUTTUR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT 670306 BY ADVS. SMT.K.SEENA SRI.P.S.BINU RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031 2 RIYAS.M AGED 42 YEARS SON OF ABOOBACKER HAJI, KUNHASIYA MANZIL, THEKKEPPURAM, AJANUR.P.O,HOSDURG, KASARGOD DISTRICT 671531 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

Bail Appl..No.7017 OF 2020

¶10

-2-

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Dated this the 18th day of December 2020 APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL U/S 438 Cr.PC

¶13

The applicants are accused Nos. 1-3 in Crime No.135/2019 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasargod, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with 34 of I.P.C.

¶14

The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 26.12.2016 at Balla Gramam in Hosdurg, the accused dishonestly induced the defacto complainant that, he would be made a partner in the hotel business which is intended to be started by them and he delivered a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs to them. However, the hotel business did not start and the amount was never returned. The applicants thus cheated the defacto complainant. It is further stated that the applicant returned a sum of Rs.6,07,336/- and for the balance amount of Rs.18,92,664/-, issued a cheque which contained forged signature and was not accepted. The applicants thereby cheated the defacto complainant. The applicants would contend that the allegations are not true. The agreement was between the applicants and defacto complainant's brother. They

¶15

Bail Appl..No.7017 OF 2020

¶16

-3-

¶17

were all in Dubai. The first applicant was also employed in Dubai. The business did not start because of other problems. And there was no intention for the applicants to cheat the defacto complainant or his brother. It is also stated that a sum of Rs.6,07,336/- has already been returned which itself would indicate that the applicants did not have any intention to cheat and therefore, it is prayed that they may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants and learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the first applicant is the husband of the second applicant and the son-in-law of the third applicant. The third applicant is suffering from cancer and requires constant treatment. Under the circumstances, it is prayed that they may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶19

After having considered the entire submissions, I find that the applicants are without any antecedents but, however, the first applicant who was in Dubai conducting business will have to be subjected to interrogation for which he will have to

¶20

Bail Appl..No.7017 OF 2020

¶21

-4-

¶22

surrender and co-operate with the investigation. The second applicant and the third applicant can be released on anticipatory bail being ladies without any previous antecedents.

¶23

In the result, the application is allowed in part. The applicants are directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of their being arrested, after interrogation, the applicants 2 and 3 shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and on following further conditions:

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

Bail Appl..No.7017 OF 2020

¶29

-5-

¶30

jurisdictional Court.

¶31

The first applicant, after interrogation, shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of preferably on the same day.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

AJ/18.12.2020

Salam.M.T.P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salam.M.T.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

Thomas Daniel @ Roy Vs State of Kerala

Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sajikumar S Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh Gopinath Vs State of Kerala

Joby Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala