The Kerala High Court rejected an application for anticipatory bail in a cheating case. The court held that the applicant's claim of non-participation could not be determined at this stage and directed surrender within two weeks.
Application disposed of; direction to surrender before Investigating Officer within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1942
Bail Appl..No.613 OF 2021
CRIME NO.523/2020 OF MELATTUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUHAMMED FAISAL P, AGED 37 YEARS, ERADAN HOUSE, NALUVARIKUNNU, THIRUVAZHAMKUNNU, MELATTOOR, MANARKADU, MALAPPURAM PIN-679325
BY ADV. SRI.RAHUL SASI
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PIN-682031
2 BUSHRA, AGED 56 YEARS, VELAKKATTIL HOUSE, PANANGANGARA, RAMAPURAM P.O, MELATTOR PIN-679325
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANTHOSH PETER – SR.PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.613 OF 2021
2
ORDER
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2021
APPLICATION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL
The applicant is the 1st accused in Crime No. 523 of 2020, Melattur Police Station, Malappuram, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is this:
B.A.No.613 OF 2021
the poultry and he instead handed over the same to the 2nd accused. And, therefore, he has not been wrongfully gained due to the transaction between the purchasers and the 2nd and 3rd accused. He has no criminal antecedents. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation. And, therefore, seeks pre-arrest bail.
applicant claims that he is only an employee. But, the prosecution case is that he and the other accused were jointly running the poultry hatchery and that their contribution is equal. Whether the applicant has himself wrongfully gained due to the transaction is a matter for investigation to find out. The bail court cannot now decide on the basis of the available material that the applicant is not guilty. Hence, considering the magnitude of the cheating involved, the applicant is definitely not entitled to the discretionary and extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.
B.A.No.613 OF 2021
The application is therefore disposed of with a direction to the applicant to surrender before the Investigating Officer within two weeks. In the event of his arrest, after interrogation, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional court, where he is at liberty to apply for a regular bail, which shall be considered and preferably disposed of on the very same day.
NR/19/03/2021
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail given the magnitude of cheating and suspicious circumstances in jointly running the business.
Whether the applicant's claim of being a mere employee is suffcient without investigation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Muhammad Faisal P
State of Kerala
Bushra
Ashok Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court