Allowed

Sajma Raghu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7647/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case involving a chitty scheme. The court allowed the bail noting the company was under official liquidator control, framing conditions for release.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed granting pre-arrest bail subject to conditions including execution of bond with two solvent sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.

Sajma Raghu Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 7647 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.371 OF 2021 OF PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION,

KOZHIKODE

PETITIONER:

SAJMA RAGHU,

AGED 45 YEARS, W/O RAGHU, UDAYAM, PULPARAMBIL, MEEMBATTA ROAD, KOTTOOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 016. BY ADV C.V.JITHESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.

¶13

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 001. SMT SEENA C-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶16

ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

B.A.No.7647 of 2021

¶19

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶20

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶21

B.A.No. 7647 of 2021

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2021

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶25

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.371 of 2021 of Panniyankara Police Station, Kozhikode District registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the petitioner has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code.

¶26

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant was the subscriber of the chitty conducted by M/s.Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits Pvt.Ltd. She subscribed the chitty for Rs.2 lakhs and paid subscription for 40 installments and thus paid a total sum of Rs.1,95,000/-.

¶27

But the amount was not repaid even after winding-up of the company. Thus she has been cheated by this petitioner and

¶28

¶29

B.A.No.7647 of 2021

¶30

thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶31

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

¶32

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per the proceedings in Company Petition No.43 of 2016 of this Court, the company was wound-up and an official liquidator was appointed. Now, the liquidator is managing the company. So this petitioner has nothing to do in the matter, in which the official liquidator is holding control of the company, as per the proceedings initiated before this court. Still she apprehends arrest and hence she was compelled to approach this court with this application.

¶33

According to the learned Public Prosecutor also the company is under the control of the official liquidator appointed by this Court when an order of winding up was passed in the company case on 04.02.2019. Having regard to the nature of the accusation levelled against this petitioner as well as the fact that the official liquidator appointed by this Court in Company petition No.43 of 2016 had taken over the

¶34

¶35

B.A.No.7647 of 2021

¶36

affairs of the company following its winding up, I am of the view that this application can be disposed of granting prearrest bail.

¶37

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed subject

¶38

to the following conditions :-

¶39

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer in the event of her arrest;

¶40

(ii) She shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him;

¶41

(iii) The petitioner 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 such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and

¶42

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶43

¶44

B.A.No.7647 of 2021

¶45

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the law.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶48

dkr

Sajma Raghu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajma Raghu 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

Abdul Saleem Vs State of Kerala

Afzal, Vs State of Kerala

Sudhir K. Vs State of Kerala

Jayarajan Theniyadan, Vs State of Kerala

Moideenkutty A.P. Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Sohib Vs State of Kerala