Dismissed

Salim Ali, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022Bail Appl./7329/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought anticipatory bail for alleged cheating and dishonest misappropriation of property under IPC 1860. Bail was dismissed as investigation revealed the petitioner was a partner who misappropriated funds, and his claim of being cheated lacked evidentiary support regarding any prior complaint.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Salim Ali, Vs State of Kerala — Money Laundering | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 7329 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.775 OF 2021 OF PAYYOLY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER:

¶6

SALIM ALI, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIALI, THEVARAKANDIYIL, VATTAYAM, VADAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 507.

¶7

BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

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

¶10

SRI.M.C.ASHI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶11

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 22.12.2021, THE COURT ON 05.01.2022 DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:

B.A.No.7329 of 2021

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶16

----------------------------------------------------------B.A.No. 7329 of 2021

¶17

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of January, 2022

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under

¶20

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶21

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.775 of 2021 of Payyoly Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

The allegation is that the accused persons started a jewellery business under the name and style 'Gold Palace' at Payyoly. They collected money from several persons, including

¶23

the defacto complainant, assuring that the deposit amount along with profits on it would be returned to the depositors. From some persons, the accused had received gold also on making similar assurance. The accused did not return the deposit/gold or profits to the de facto complainant and other depositors and thereby the accused committed the

¶24

¶25

B.A.No.7329 of 2021

¶26

aforementioned offences.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report of the investigating officer.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1^st accused assured him that he would be made a partner in the jewellery business and on such assurance, the 1^st accused received Rs.5 lakhs and 338 grams of gold from the petitioner. He was assured that the invested money and the gold will be returned on or before 25.08.2021. For a short duration, the petitioner was employed as a drivercum-salesman in the jewellery and as salary was not paid, he quit the job. The petitioner submitted a complaint regarding the same against the 1^st accused before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nadapuram on 28.08.2021. The petitioner was made an accused on the wrong notion that he was also involved in the business. On those reasons, the learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is entitled

¶30

¶31

B.A.No.7329 of 2021

¶32

to get anticipatory bail.

¶33

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would contend that all the six accused, including the petitioner, were actively involved in the jewellery business and they in furtherance of their common intention had cheated the customers and misappropriated the money and gold obtained from the depositors. It is submitted that several complaints were received against the accused and several crimes were registered from Nadapuram and Kuttiyadi Police Stations against them. The learned Public Prosecutor would accordingly submit that the arrest of the petitioner is required for a proper investigation in the matter.

¶34

The petitioner produced Annexure II, which is a copy of the complaint dated 28.08.2021 addressed to the Dy.S.P. Nadapuram. From this document it cannot be said that such a complaint was actually submitted before the Dy.S.P. Nadapuram. No receipt or acknowledgment showing due submission is produced. From the report of the investigating officer it is seen that the petitioner was one of the partners of

¶35

¶36

B.A.No.7329 of 2021

¶37

the jewellery 'Gold Palace'. When the complicity of the petitioner in commission of the crime is revealed from the investigation so far conducted, the contention of the petitioner that it was he who was cheated by the 1^st accused cannot be accepted in the absence of any material. As pointed out above, Annexure II is not available to his help since there is nothing on record to show that such a complaint was really submitted. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that

¶38

the petitioner is not entitled to get anticipatory bail. The bail application is dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶41

dkr

Salim Ali, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim Ali, 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

Muhammed Sudheer, Vs State of Kerala

Aniyan @ Anilkumar, Vs State of Kerala

Sudheesh (A-1) Vs State of Kerala

Firose Babu Vs State of Kerala

Vasu Vs State of Kerala

Sajan Raj Vs State of Kerala