Dismissed

Salim Ali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022Bail Appl./7513/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by a third accused in a cheating case related to a failed jewellery business. The court rejected the plea based on the investigation report indicating the accused's active role in misappropriating funds, despite the defence claim.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; arrest of the petitioner required for proper investigation.

Salim Ali Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | 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. 7513 OF 2021

¶5

CRIME NO.791/2021 OF PAYYOLI POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONER:

¶6

SALIM ALI AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIALI, THEVARAKANDIYIL, VATTAYAM, VADAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673507.

¶7

BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶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.7513 of 2021

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶16

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

¶17

B.A.No. 7513 of 2021

¶18

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

¶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 3^rd accused in Crime No.791 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, six in number, started a jewellery business under the name and style 'Gold Palace' at Payyoly. They collected money from several persons, including 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

¶23

¶24

B.A.No.7513 of 2021

¶25

defacto complainant and other depositors and thereby the accused committed the aforementioned offences.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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. Since salary was not paid, he quit the job. 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 to get anticipatory bail.

¶29

¶30

B.A.No.7513 of 2021

¶31

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.

¶32

From the report of the investigating officer, it is seen that the petitioner was one of the partners of 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 in support thereof. In the said circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is not

¶33

¶34

B.A.No.7513 of 2021

¶35

entitled to get anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application is dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

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