Allowed

Shameem K. P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Apr 2023Bail Appl./2050/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala considered a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC in an alleged cheating case. The court granted bail contingent upon the accused surrendering within two weeks for interrogation and complying with strict conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigation Officer within two weeks for interrogation. After interrogation, he shall be released on bail upon executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- with two s

Shameem K. P Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 21ST CHAITHRA, 1945 BAIL APPL. NO. 2050 OF 2023

¶4

CRIME NO.127/2023 OF Chandera Police Station, Kasargod

¶5

PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED:

¶6

SHAMEEM K. P AGED 32 YEARS KOVVAPPURAM, PERUMBA, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR, KERALA, PIN - 670307 BY ADVS. RAHUL SASI NEETHU PREM MANU K. MURALI

¶7

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANDERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, KERALA, PIN - 671310 3 SAMIYA SAKKARIYA AGED 24 YEARS MISIRIYA MANZIL, POLLAYIL, KADAMKODE, THURUTHI, KASARAGODE, KERALA, PIN - 671351 BY ADVS. SATHEESH V A V.T.MADHAVANUNNI(K/000329/1983) ANAND V.S(K/1623/2021)

¶9

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A No. 2050 of 2023

O R D E R

This is an application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶14

2 . The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No. 127/2023 of Chandera Police Station. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The same was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent, the wife of the petitioner herein.

¶15

3 . The prosecution case is as follows: During the year 2018, by utilizing the funds obtained from the sale of gold ornaments of the defacto complainant, the petitioner purchased three cars in the name of the defacto complainant. It is alleged that, the petitioner sold those cars without the knowledge and permission of the defacto complainant based on forged documents and thereby committed the offence. The complaint was submitted, and the crime was registered by the police on 19.11.2022. This application is submitted by the petitioner in

¶16

¶17

B.A No. 2050 of 2023

¶18

such circumstances as he apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case.

¶19

4 . Heard, Sri. Rahul Sasi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.C.S Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Sri.V.T Madhavanunni, the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent.

¶20

5 . The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the said case. According to him the petitioner is engaged in the business of the sale of used cars, and all the said vehicles were dealt with as part of his business activities. According to him, all the transactions were done with the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant, and the crime happened to be submitted only when some matrimonial disputes arose between them. The learned counsel further submits that he is prepared to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and he is prepared to cooperate with the investigation.

¶21

6 . On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would oppose the aforesaid contentions. According to him, this is a case

¶22

¶23

B.A No. 2050 of 2023

¶24

in which, the petitioner falsely created the documents with the intention of cheating the defacto complainant. It is further pointed out that, the investigation is now in progress, and hence his interrogation is essential for recovering the documents.

¶25

7 . I have gone through the records and heard the contentions raised by all the parties concerned. It is evident from the records that, the purchase of the vehicles was affected in the year 2018. It is also pointed out that the transactions which are the subject matter of the case also happened immediately thereafter. The specific case of the defacto complainant is that he is a businessman dealing with the sale of used cars and these transactions occurred during the course of his business. It is also contended by the petitioner that the transactions took place with the knowledge and consent of the defacto complainant and in the facts and circumstances of the case as referred to above, the same cannot be simply brushed aside. The petitioner was in good terms with the defacto complainant at the relevant time is a factor indicating the possibility of the case of the petitioner.

¶26

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the cooperation of the petitioner with

¶27

¶28

B.A No. 2050 of 2023

¶29

the investigation is ensured by issuing appropriate orders, even while protecting the personal liberty of the petitioner. Therefore, it is ordered that, the petitioner shall surrender before the Investigation Officer and comply with the following conditions:-

¶30

i ) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting himself to interrogation.

¶31

ii ) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer

¶32

iii) The petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶33

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until the filing of the final report.

¶34

¶35

B.A No. 2050 of 2023

¶36

v ) The petitioner shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶37

vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶38

vii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶39

viii) The petitioner shall not leave the State of Kerala without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶40

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Magistrate shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A

JUDGE

rpk

B.A No. 2050 of 2023

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2050/2023

¶48

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure1 THE CITIZEN COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH FIS IN CRIME NO. 127 OF 2023 ON 19.11.2022

Shameem K. P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shameem K. P 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

Ayyappan Vs Shanti

Vivin Vincent Vs M/S Auto Bhan Trucking Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

Mohamed Ashik, Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Surendra Babu Vs State of Kerala

Noushad a Vs State of Kerala

Saddiq Vs State of Kerala