Allowed

Sainul Abidheen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Jan 2021Bail Appl./155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants regular bail to Sainul Abidheen in two bail applications filed in separate but related criminal cases involving cheating and misappropriation. The High Court, finding the applicant cooperative and not likely to abscond, allowed bail subject to a surety bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail allowed; applicant directed to be released on bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for same amount subject to four specific conditions.

Sainul Abidheen Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

Bail Appl.No.62 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.223/2020 OF CBCID, KANNUR , Kannur

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SAINUL ABIDHEEN, AGED 58 YEARS, T.K HOUSE, CHANDHERA, MANIYATT P.O., KASARGOD – 671310.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

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

¶12

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH, KANNUR.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.155/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

B.A.Nos.62 and 155 of 2021

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶21

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

¶22

Bail Appl.No.155 OF 2021

¶23

CRIME NO.172/2020 OF CBCID, KANNUR , Kannur

¶24

PETITIONER/S:

¶25

SAINUL ABIDHEEN, AGED 58 YEARS T.K HOUSE, CHANDHERA, MANIYATT P.O., KASARGOD – 671310.

¶26

BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW

¶27

RESPONDENT/S:

¶28

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

¶29

2 DEPUTY SUPERINTEND OF POLICE CRIME BRANCH, KANNUR.

¶30

SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SR PP

¶31

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl.62/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

B.A.Nos.62 and 155 of 2021

¶33

¶34

COMMON ORDER

¶35

[ Bail Appl.62/2021, Bail Appl.155/2021 ] Dated this the 8th day of January 2021

¶36

Applications for regular bail under Section 439 of

¶37

the Cr.P.C.

¶38

Nos.223/CB/KNR-KSD/2020 and 172/CB/KNR-KSD/2020 of

¶39

CBCID, Kannur for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 409

¶40

read with Section 34 of the I.P.C; and under the provisions of KEDO Act and BUDS Act.

¶41

The prosecution case, in brief, is that being an employee of Fashion Gold Jewellery at Cheruvathoor at Kasaragod and being the General Manager allegeldy in furtherance of common intention with other accused induced several depositors, including the de facto complainant in these crimes to deposit money in the company, which was allegedly misappropriated by the Directors and Managing Director of the company and thereby the depositors were cheated.

¶42

B.A.Nos.62 and 155 of 2021

¶43

¶44

The applicant would state that he is only a

¶45

paid Manager and has very limited role in the act and

¶46

that he has not misapprorpated any amount and that he was only acting with the directions issued by the Managing Director and other Directors of the company. The applicant has no criminal antecedents also. However, the earlier application for anticipatory bail filed by him in these cases were rejected by this Court for the reason that he had played an important role in the agreements which were executed between the Managing Director and the customers and he had also subscribed signature to those agreements. Under the

¶47

circumstances, his precise role in the transactions would have to be ascertained, and therefore,

¶48

anticipatory bail was rejected and he was directed to surrender. Subsequent to his surrendering before the investigating officer on 18.12.2020, he was subjected to custodial interrogation. His statement has been

¶49

recorded and investigation has progressed, and

¶50

therefore, he states that further incarceration is not

¶51

be necesary as there is no possibility of his

¶52

B.A.Nos.62 and 155 of 2021

¶53

¶54

absconding and he is willing to cooperate with the investigation. It is also submitted that he is 58

¶55

years old and therfore under the pandemic situation he may not be further incarcerated.

¶56

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶57

Considering the arguments submitted by both sides, I find that the applicant has subjected himself to interrogation and cooperated with the investigation and he was also qustioned in custody. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is likelihood that

¶58

he may be implicated in other crimes also, and

¶59

therefore, his availability may be ensured in case he is granted bail. Under the circumstances, I find that the applicant need not be incarcerated further in these cases.

¶60

In the result, the Bail Applications are allowed

¶61

and the applicant is directed to be released on bail on

¶62

the execution of bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one

¶63

lakh only) in each case, with two solvent sureties each, for the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶64

¶65

B.A.Nos.62 and 155 of 2021

¶66

jurisdictional court, on the following other

¶67

conditions:

¶68

i) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation;

¶69

ii) He shall surrender his passport before the jurisdictional court and shall not go abroad or leave the State of Kerala without prior sanction of the jurisdictional court with intimation to the investigating officer;

¶70

iii) He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses; and

¶71

iv) He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

¶72

In case of breach of any of the bail conditions, the

¶73

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

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

dkr

JUDGE

Sainul Abidheen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sainul Abidheen 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

Dr.Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Ria Ann Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sainul Abidheen Vs State of Kerala

Bhoopendra Rawat Vs Public Prosecutor

Rahul Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala