Allowed

Shahin T. v. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Kerala HC18 Mar 2022Bail Appl./542/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'l Justice Gopinath P. granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners accused of cheating (IPC 420/34) for inducing victims to invest in a vanishing cryptocurrency firm. Bail conditioned on furnishing bonds and depositing money.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 803/2019, subject to execution of bonds, deposit of Rs. 1 lakh, and compliance with investigation conditions.

Shahin T. Vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public… — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 542 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SHAHIN T. AGED 32 YEARS AMK BUNGLOW, KARICHARA, PALLIPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316 2 SARA JALAL AGED 27 YEARS AMK BUNGLOW, KARICHARA, PALLIPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316 3 THAHA M. AGED 69 YEARS AMK BUNGLOW, KARICHARA, PALLIPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316 4 MEHARUNNISA S. AGED 59 YEARS AMK BUNGLOW, KARICHARA, PALLIPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316 5 SHAJIN T. AGED 39 YEARS AMK BUNGLOW, KARICHARA, PALLIPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695316 BY ADVS. T.I.UNNIRAJA S.G.SREEKANTH S.BADUSHA SREEJITH S. JOEL ANTONY GEORGE FAHEEM AHSAN.S

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501 3 ARUN,

¶10

BAIL APPL. NO. 542 OF 2022

¶11

¶12

AGED 37 YEARS S/O MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, VISMAYAM, KEEZHPATTU, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM, KERALA-691303 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 15/2/2022 IN CRIM.MA.NO.1/2022.

¶13

SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP)

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE

¶15

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

BAIL APPL. NO. 542 OF 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district alleging commission of offences under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶20

The allegation against the petitioners is that, by giving false promises, they induced the defacto complainant to invest money in a firm dealing with cryptocurrency. It is alleged that the company in question simply vanished one fine day and thereby the petitioners committed the offences alleged against them.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the matter. It is submitted that the petitioners themselves were victims of fraud and they had also lost their money invested with the company. It is submitted that the petitioners have absolutely nothing to do with the company and the defacto complainant has no case that any amount of money was directly given to the petitioners. It is submitted that the amounts of money which were transferred to the accounts of the petitioners were for purchasing

¶22

BAIL APPL. NO. 542 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

cryptocurrency already purchased by the petitioner and was not for direct purchase of any cryptocurrency. It is submitted that, at any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation.

¶25

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that the defacto complainant and 15 others were induced to invest huge sums of money (a total of Rs.34,94,790/-) into cryptocurrency owing to the false representations by the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the entire money was transferred through bank and the transactions cannot be denied by the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. The case against them can be properly investigated without their custodial interrogation.

¶27

In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is directed that the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.803/2019

¶28

BAIL APPL. NO. 542 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

of Mangalapuram Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

¶31

(I) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶32

(ii) Petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) before the jurisdictional court;

¶33

(iii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station as and when called upon to do so;

¶34

(iv) Petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station;

¶35

(v) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶36

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P.

JUDGE

BAIL APPL. NO. 542 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 542/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit1 ORDER DATED 04/12/2021 OF ADL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE- VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Shahin T. v. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahin T. v. State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ushadevi P T, Vs State of Kerala Represented by Public Prosecutor

Vayalapra Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal (A-1) Vs State of Kerala

Vipin Das, Vs State of Kerala

Nandakumar H. Vs State of Kerala