Dismissed

Minhajudeen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Aug 2022Bail Appl./2755/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Viju Abraham dismissed this anticipatory bail application. The court refused bail because custodial interrogation was deemed necessary for the investigation into a cheating scheme involving passports and foreign employment, noting the petitioner and principal accused did not cooperate.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail denied; petitioner to be made available for custodial interrogation.

Minhajudeen Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 3RD BHADRA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2755 OF 2022

¶6

(Crime No. 1199/2021 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad)

¶7

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶8

MINHAJUDEEN
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.IMDAD,95/92, 9TH STREET, KAMARAJAR
NAGAR,AVADI,THIRUVALLUR,TAMILNADU, PIN - 600054
BY ADV V.A.HARITHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶11

2STATION HOUSE OFFICER
TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION,
PALAKKAD, MARKET ROAD, POLICE QUARTERS, VAAKKANTHARA,
PALAKKAD, KERALA-, PIN - 678001

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SR.PP - SMT. SEETHA S.

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

BAIL APPL. NO. 2755 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

VIJU ABRAHAM, J

¶18

Dated this the 25th day of August, 2022

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶20

The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.

¶21

1199/2021 of Town North Police Station, Palakkad, alleging commission of offences punishable under sections 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and The Emigration Act, 1983.

¶22

The prosecution allegation is that 1st accused is running a business in the name and style of Impact Overseas solutions, near Victoria College, Palakkad. He collected a sum of Rs 75,000/- from the defacto complainant on 30.11.2020 and on subsequent dates, promising to arrange an employment abroad. The first accused neither arranged the employment nor returned the money and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. The prosecution further alleges that on investigation, it was found that the first accused had collected money and passports from several persons and entrusted the same with the petitioner, who is running a business in the

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 2755 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

name and style of Alfataah Tours and Travels private Ltd at Chennai. And he affixed seals as if it is the Visa stamped and also issued documents in the form of intimation letter, electronic invitation to enter the Russian Federation, work contract etc and he sent the same to the job seekers through whatsapp. The prosecution also says that accused collected lakhs of rupees from several persons with an intention to cheat them and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶26

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

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid crime and he is running a travel agency after obtaining registration from the Ministry of External Affairs and other lawful authorities. The counsel for the petitioner handover to the court the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs and on the basis of that it is further contended that the petitioner is having licence for conducting business tours and travels.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions

¶29

¶30

BAIL APPL. NO. 2755 OF 2022

¶31

submitted that the first accused has obtained amounts from various persons on a promise to offer a job abroad. An amount of Rs.75,000/- was received from the defacto complainant. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that first accused received huge amounts from various persons and the bank statements revealed that there were lot of transactions between the first and second accused. It is further submitted that the first accused is involved in four other crimes of similar nature. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that notice was issued to the petitioner under Section 41A of Cr.P.C, but the petitioner did not turn up to co-operate with the investigation and further submitted that many of the passports were seized as part of the investigation. Many visas are been endorsed that of the Russian Federation

¶32

and enquired with the Consolation General of Russian Federation, Chennai, they intimated that the said country does not issued any such visa as is endorsed in the passports. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the nature of the

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO. 2755 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

allegation, I feel that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation and I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, bail application fails and is dismissed.

¶36

sd/-

¶37

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶38

R.AV

Minhajudeen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minhajudeen 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

Shaji R. Vs State of Kerala

Madhu Vs State of Kerala

Sanil Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ashkar Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sajid K Vs State of Kerala