Allowed

Mohammed Dheeraj v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2021Bail Appl./7877/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application for anticipatory bail to Mohammed Dheraj, accused of rape and cheating. The court imposed conditions including the surrender of items and payment of a bond, noting that the other applicant's case was disposed of as no crime was registered.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions including bond execution, investigation cooperation for a limited period, non-communication with the complainant, and surrender of specified items.

Mohammed Dheeraj Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 7877 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.47/2021 OF MALAPPURAM VANITHA POLICE STATION

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

MOHAMMED DHEERAJ AGED 39 YEARS, S/O MAMMU, PONNANGATHODI HOUSE, MANNARAMBU, ARIPRA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN679321.

¶8

BY ADV NIREESH MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶10

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

¶11

BY ADV SHARAN SHAHIER

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. NOUSHAD K.A. (SR.PP)

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..9790/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Bail Appl. Nos.7877/2021, 9790/2021

¶16

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶20

MONDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶21

BAIL APPL. NO. 9790 OF 2021

¶22

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶23

THAHLIM. P., AGED 23 YEARS D/O.MOHAMMED ALI, PAZHAYODATH HOUSE, PATHAIKARA POST, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 322.

¶24

BY ADVS.

¶25

SHARAN SHAHIER MINTU CHERIYAN LILIN LAL

¶26

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAIANT:

¶27

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

¶28

2 MUHAMMED DEERAJ, S/O.MAMMU, PONNANGATHODI HOUSE, MANNARAMBU, ARIPRA POST, MALAPPURAM-679 321.

¶29

SMT.SEETHA S. (SR.PP)

¶30

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2021, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7877/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

¶32

Bail Appl. Nos.7877/2021, 9790/2021

¶33

ORDER

¶34

[Bail Appl. Nos.7877/2021 & 9790/2021]

¶35

These are applications for anticipatory bail.

¶36

The petitioner in Bail Application No.7877/2021 is the accused in Crime No.47/2021 of Malappuram Vanitha Police Station. The allegation against the petitioner in Bail Application No.7877/2021 is that he entered into a relationship with the de-facto complainant and on the false pretext of marriage, committed rape on her and thereafter, uploaded certain pictures of the de-facto complainant with the petitioner on Facebook and thereby committed the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner in Bail Application No.7877/2021 would submit that the relationship between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant was purely consensual and there was no element of any coercion or fraud as alleged. It is submitted that the defacto complainant was well aware that the petitioner was a married man and had still entered into the relationship with him. The learned counsel submits that the allegation that the petitioner had uploaded certain photographs of the de-facto complainant along with the petitioner is absolutely untenable as those photographs would suggest that the face of

¶38

¶39

Bail Appl. Nos.7877/2021, 9790/2021

¶40

the de-facto complainant had been masked out while the identity of the petitioner is clearly discernible from the photographs.

¶41

The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the

¶42

de-facto complainant would submit that the allegations against the petitioner are quite serious. It is submitted that the petitioner had cheated the de-facto complainant and had secured her consent for a relationship on the pretext of marriage. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant specifically points out the averments in the bail application which would suggest that the petitioner had clearly given a promise to the de-facto complainant that he would marry her. It is submitted that when the promise of marriage is false at the inception, the offence of rape as defined under Section 375 IPC is clearly attracted. The learned Public Prosecutor adds that the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner may result in the investigation being affected as the custody of the petitioner is required for the purpose of a proper investigation. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant would add that the 1) passport of the de-facto complainant, 2) ATM card of the de-facto complainant in respect of ICICI Savings Bank Account No.07490150 6808, 3) one memory card/SD card, 4) one pen drive and 5) SIM card relating to m0bile number +91 9747356665 are in the custody of the petitioner and if this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, it may be directed that these items be handed

¶43

¶44

Bail Appl. Nos.7877/2021, 9790/2021

¶45

over to the de-facto complainant forthwith. It is also submitted that certain gold ornaments of the de-facto complainant were misappropriated by the petitioner and further that an amount of Rs.19,000/- is due to the de-facto complainant from the petitioner. It is submitted that the value of the gold ornaments misappropriated by the petitioner at current market rate would be about Rs.1,44,000/- and that together with the Rs.19,000/- owed by the petitioner to the de-facto complainant, a total amount of Rs.1,53,000/- is due to the de-facto complainant.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the items mentioned above can be handed over to the counsel for the de-facto complainant. He also submits that a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- will be handed over to the counsel for the de-facto complainant within ten days from today and that if the de-facto complainant has any further claim, she may take such legal measures as may be necessary to recover such amount from the petitioner. This is recorded and will be treated as a condition upon which bail has been granted to the petitioner.

¶47

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and despite the vehement objection of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the de-facto complainant, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions.

¶48

¶49

Bail Appl. Nos.7877/2021, 9790/2021

¶50

In the result, bail application No.7877/2021 is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of the arrest in connection with Crime No.47/2021 of Malappuram Police Station, subject to the following conditions:-

¶51

(i) Petitioner in Bail Application No.7877/2021 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional Court;

¶52

(ii) Petitioner in Bail Application No.7877/2021 shall cooperate with the investigation and report before the investigating officer in Crime No.47/2021 of Malappuram Vanitha Police Station for a period of five days from 02.01.2022 to 07.01.2022 and thereafter, whenever called upon to do so;

¶53

(iii) Petitioner in Bail Application No.7877/2021 shall not attempt to contact the de-facto complainant or to interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.47/2021 of Malappuram Vanitha Police Station;

¶54

(iv) Petitioner in Bail Application No.7877/2021 shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶55

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the investigating officer in Crime No.47/2021 of Malappuram Vanitha Police Station or the de-facto complainant may file an application before this Court, for

¶56

Bail Appl. Nos.7877/2021, 9790/2021

¶57

¶58

cancellation of bail.

¶59

Bail Application No.9790/2021

¶60

It is reported that no crime has been registered against the petitioner

¶61

in Bail Application No.9790/2021.

¶62

Taking note of the above submission, it is directed that if any crime is registered against the petitioner on the basis of any complaint filed by the petitioner in Bail Application No.7877/2021, a notice under Section 41A Cr.PC shall be issued to the petitioner.

¶63

Bail Application No.9790/2021 is disposed of as above.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶66

bng/20.12.21

Mohammed Dheeraj v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Dheeraj 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

Vincent Decruz Vs State of Kerala

Shyne Raj Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Shareefa Ullath Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Saseendran Vs State of Kerala

Santhamma Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev N.K. Vs State of Kerala