Dismissed

Muhammad Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8108/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC by directing the petitioner's surrender to the investigating officer and granting bail upon satisfaction of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer by 17.12.2021; bail granted subject to execution of bond and compliance with investigation conditions.

Muhammad Musthafa Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8108 OF 2021

¶6

CRIME NO.660/2020 OF MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION,

¶7

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1890/2021 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶10

MUHAMMAD MUSTHAFA AGED 35 YEARS S/O.K.P.ABOOBAKER, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2002, 20TH FLOOR,ABHIMAAN HILLS, LIGHT HOUSE HILL ROAD, MANGLORE, KARNATAKA STATE, PIN CODE-575001.

¶11

BY ADV VISHAK.K.JOHNSON

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.(ON BEHALF OF SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNANTHALA POLICE STATION), PIN CODE-682031.

¶14

SMT.SREEJA.V-SR.PP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. NO. 8108 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Application for pre-arrest bail.

¶20

The petitioner, who is the 4^th accused in Crime No.660/2020 of Mannanthala Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, has moved this application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶21

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant had entrusted a Hyundai i20 car bearing Registration No.KL–22-C-191, to accused Nos.1 to 3 on rental basis. They used the car for certain period on payment of rent, but failed to return the same. When enquired, it was informed to him that t he car was lost in theft. But on investigation it was revealed that this petitioner along with the other accused had sold the car to another person without informing the defacto complainant, with the intention to cause unlawful gain and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶22

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he has absolutely no connection with the defacto complainant or with the other accused. The petitioner is an interior designer working at Manglore. One day in the year 2017, one Pratheesh contacted him

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 8108 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

and told that his friends were on their way to Banglore and that the car had damaged and some urgent repair works was found necessary. So as requested by him, the petitioner introduced them to a workshop as he is having acquaintance with the workshop owner. There he had given his mobile number also. The car was repaired there and then they left the place. Apart from that he has absolutely no connection or knowledge about the alleged incident. But he apprehends arrest and hence this application.

¶26

The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the crime is of the year 2020, the car was entrusted by the defacto complainant to accused Nos.1 to 3 in the year 2013. The investigating agency could not trace out the car till date and more over the accused have not been arrested so far. Hence the investigation is pending. The learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that this petitioner had handed over the car to one Imran and he had mishandled the vehicle. So the investigation has to proceed with and this petitioner has to be interrogated to unearth the facts involved in this case.

¶27

Heard both sides.

¶28

The prosecution has no case that this petitioner is having

¶29

BAIL APPL. NO. 8108 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

any connection with the defacto complainant or the defacto complainant had entrusted the vehicle to this petitioner along with accused Nos.1 to 3. The investigating agency had collected his

¶32

mobile number from the workshop. A part from that no material is available on record to connect this petitioner with the case. The investigation of the case is only in progress and the car has not been traced out till date.

¶33

Considering the entire facts involved in this case, I think that this application can be disposed of directing the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer on 17.12.2021 between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 noon . Upon his surrender, after interrogation and recovery if any, he can be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶35

(ii) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when required by him, in writing. (iii) He shall co-operate with the investigation and trial of the case.

¶36

(iv) He shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted

¶37

BAIL APPL. NO. 8108 OF 2021

¶38

¶39

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.

¶40

(v) He shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶41

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the learned

¶42

Magistrate is empowered to cancel the bail in accordance with the

law.

Sd/-

SHIRCY V. JUDGE

mpm

Muhammad Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammad Musthafa v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baliya Nayak Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen K.K. Vs the Authorized Officer

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Albin Vs State of Kerala

Manju Jose Vs Jijo Jacob

Rajeswary Vs State of Kerala