Dismissed

Jameela, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Dec 2021Bail Appl./8112/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court rejected an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC due to likely hindrance of investigation into alleged loan misappropriation via forged signatures. The court ordered surrender and directed consideration for bail under Section 57 CrPC after investigation concludes.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; directed to surrender within two weeks; bail to be considered by Magistrate after production.

Jameela, 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 P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 8112 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.848 OF 2021 OF ALATHUR POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JAMEELA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. MUHAMMAD, THOPPIL HOUSE, PAZHAMBALACOD P.O., TIRUR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

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

¶11

SMT C.SEENA- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶12

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

¶13

¶14

B.A.No.8112 of 2021

¶15

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A.No. 8112 of 2021

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

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

¶21

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.848 of 2021 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad. The offences alleged are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

The allegations are that while functioning as Chairman of CDS Unit and Secretary of Suvarana Kudumbasree Unit, Pazhambalacode, availed a loan of Rs.25,000/- in the name of the de facto complainant and misappropriated the same. The petitioner had availed the loan by presenting documents with forged signatures of the de facto complainant.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

B.A.No.8112 of 2021

¶26

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

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as per Annexure D Ledger Book the amount drawn as loan by the members of Kudumbasree Unit were being directly received by themselves and there is no allegation that any amount is due to the bank from where the loan was availed. According to the learned counsel, had the petitioner availed a loan in the name of the de facto complainant as alleged, there would have been arrears in the bank and in the absence of any such arrears, the allegations against the petitioner can only be said to be incorrect. The petitioner, being a lady of 51 years and the allegations against her are prima facie false, her custodial interrogation is liable to be avoided.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has, along with the report of the investigating officer, placed on record the statements of 17 persons, who are members of the

¶29

¶30

B.A.No.8112 of 2021

¶31

Kudumbasree unit, Pazhambalacode. During the course of investigation, the statements of these persons were recorded by the investigating officer. It is seen that all of them are members of Suvarna Kudumbasree Unit and “ Mutthathemulla ” Scheme. They gave statements before the investigating officer to the effect that without their knowledge, various amounts were availed from the bank as loan and knew on recently that the petitioner had availed such loans in their names. When it is revealed that so many persons were subjected to such deception and the amount so availed as loans from the bank was misappropriated, serious investigation in the matter is warranted. From the available records, it is seen that the investigation is progressing and yet to collect more materials.

¶32

In the said circumstances, grant of bail to the petitioner will cause hurdles to a proper investigation. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of discretionary relief as provided under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the bail application is

¶33

¶34

B.A.No.8112 of 2021

¶35

dismissed, with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating within two weeks from today. In the event of her surrendering before the investigating officer, after interrogation and recovery, if any, the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate as stipulated under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. On production, the learned Magistrate shall consider the bail application, if any, is filed as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day itself.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

dkr

Jameela, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameela, 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