Allowed

Muhammed Febin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8091/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed an application for anticipatory bail in a cheating and forgery case involving misappropriation of funds online. The court directed submission to investigation within two weeks and release on a bond with sureties upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; directed to surrender within two weeks; upon arrest, release on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of similar amount under specified conditions.

Muhammed Febin Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8091 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.1113 OF 2021 OF KOYILANDY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MOHAMMED FEBIN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O LATHEEF, THEKKEDATH KANDI MEETHAL, NADERI P.O., ARIKKULAM (PART) NADARI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673602.

¶9

BY ADVS. K.REEHA KHADER O.T.JABISH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CRIME NO. 1113 /21 OF KOYILANDI POLICE STATION) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT – 673 602.

¶13

BY SMT C SEENA-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

B.A.No.8091 of 2021

¶17

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶18

----------------------------------------------------------B.A.No. 8091 of 2021

¶19

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th day of December, 2021

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

¶22

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶23

The petitioner is the accused in crime No.1113 of

¶24

2021 of Koyilandy Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 420, 471 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶25

The allegations are that the de facto complainant,

¶26

formed a treatment committee with respect to the treatment of one Gopika, who was suffering from kidney disease. The petitioner/accused with the intention of cheating the members of the committee used a forged brochure and received money using different mobile numbers, designing the same as for the purpose of the treatment of the said Gopika. Money thus collected from the public through Google Pay and other online payment modes was misappropriated by the petitioner.

¶27

¶28

B.A.No.8091 of 2021

¶29

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

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report of the Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy Police Station.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the total amount said to have been received in the way as alleged by the prosecution was only Rs.2,000/and solely out of ego between the de facto complainant and the petitioner, the complaint was filed and the crime originated. The learned counsel would further contend that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is, at any rate, unnecessary as the materials in connection with the alleged crime are available on the cyberspace, which can easily be collected without the volition of the petitioner.

¶32

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would contend that the mobile phone, which was used to defraud the de facto complaint and others, is required to be seized. The investigation is only in its initial stage and

¶33

¶34

B.A.No.8091 of 2021

¶35

considering the nature of the offence, release of the petitioner on bail at this stage will make a proper investigation in the matter impossible.

¶36

The fact that the money was collected by the petitioner on two occasions and the total amount so collected was Rs.2,000/- have not been disputed much. However, the fact remains that the allegations are grave and if it was continued unnoticed, there would have been fiddling of money of a huge volume. Be that as it may, the collection of evidence in this case can well be done with the aid of cyber police, without detaining the petitioner in custody. Interrogation of the petitioner may be required and that can also be done even without detaining him in jail. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the application is liable to be allowed.

¶37

In such circumstances, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. After interrogation and in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty

¶38

¶39

B.A.No.8091 of 2021

¶40

thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶41

(i) Once released on bail, he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for;

¶42

(ii) He shall produce the mobile phone and SIM card used for the act in question and shall cooperate with the investigation;

¶43

(iii) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

¶44

(iv) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

¶45

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall

¶46

be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶49

dkr

Muhammed Febin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Febin 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

Abimon Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan @ Ganapathi Assari Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs the State of Kerala

Prameela, Vs State of Kerala

Legeesh S.L. Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Illyas, Vs State of Kerala