Allowed

P.P.M Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Aug 2022Bail Appl./989/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC for alleged forgery, imposing several stringent conditions including bond execution, surrender, interrogation availability, and prohibitions on interfering with evidence or witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed with a bond of Rs.50,000, two sureties, surrender on 22.08.2022, and conditions regarding cooperation, non-interference with evidence, and no new crimes.

P.P.M Ashraf 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 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 989 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.1190 OF 2021 OF MUSEUM POLICESTATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

P.P.M ASHRAF AGED 70 YEARS MEDOWS, PHED ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006

¶9

BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P.

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CRIME NO. 1190/2021 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695033

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.NIMA JACOB

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2022, THE

¶15

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶17

................................................................. B.A.No. 989 of 2022

¶18

Dated this the 11^th day of August, 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶21

Petitioner is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.1190 of

¶22

2021 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”).

¶23

Gist of the prosecution allegation as per the FIS is that the defacto complainant who is the Chairman and Managing Director of KTDFC filed a complaint alleging that the 1^st accused attempted to defraud the institution by producing certain forged documents to get over the liability of loan taken by him from KTDFC. According to the defacto complainant the 1^st accused produced a document along with the representation describing as presidential decree and requested the institution to return the amounts collected from him and thus committed the abovesaid offences.

¶24

Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the abovesaid crime and not committed any crime as alleged. The 1^st accused approached the petitioner to help him in regard to his

¶25

BA No.989 of 2022

¶26

¶27

grievance relating to a loan availed from the defacto complainant company and on behalf of the 1^st accused the petitioner drafted a complaint to the President of India in the portal known as 'PG portal' on the belief that the President of India will act upon genuine complaints raised by the public. Along with the complaint, he also uploaded a draft decree prepared in the name of President of India and a copy of the draft decree was produced by the 1^st accused before the defacto complainant and on the basis of the complaint submitted, the present crime is registered. On an earlier occasion also a similar nature of crime was committed by the petitioner and a crime was registered as Crime No.1611 of 2021 of Kannur Town Police Station, in which bail has been granted to the petiitoner by this Court as per order dated 12.11.2021 in B.A.No.8414 of 2021. The case of the petitioner is that he never intended to commit any forgery. He prepared the same as a format of decree without any ulterior motive and he has uploaded the same in the PG portal. Petitioner submits that he is aged 70 years and ailing due to various diseases. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has consulted a Psychiatrist for treatment in a specialised hospital.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that

¶29

he has forged a decree and gave it to the 1^st accused to be presented before the defacto complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor upon instructions submitted that case has been booked on the basis of a complaint filed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the KTDFC.

¶30

BA No.989 of 2022

¶31

¶32

In the said instruction it is specifically stated that on earlier occasion also the petitioner has committed the same offence and when he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, he was admitted in the Psychiatry Department of Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and that he was not remanded in that case.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and

¶34

the nature of the allegations, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner but on stringent conditions.

¶35

Therefore, the bail application is disposed of with the following directions. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 22.08.2022 and make himself available for interrogation on any other day or days as directed by the investigating officer. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.1190 of 2021 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day and shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

¶36

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶37

(ii) He shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

¶38

(iii) He shall not tamper with any evidence;

¶39

BA No.989 of 2022

¶40

¶41

(iv) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶42

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

¶43

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating Officer in Crime No.1190 of 2021 of Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram may file an application before jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.

¶44

It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by the petitioner even when the petitioner is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663) .

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶47

cks

P.P.M Ashraf v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.M Ashraf 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raji Vs State of Kerala

Kiran M S/O Mohanan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Dr K P Hamsakoya Vs Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Saji Sam Vs State of Kerala

Sachin Baby, Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Nayarasseri Sivasankaran Vs State of Kerala