Dismissed

Rauf Ali Shaik Ali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Nov 2023Bail Appl./2429/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal cases involving allegations of cheating under IPC Sections 420, 406, and 34, the Kerala High Court dismissed anticipatory bail applications. Finding serious allegations of obtaining 15,120 US dollars fraudulently and citing prior antecedents, the court held that granting bail would derail the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 CrPC by the accused persons were dismissed as the case was not a fit case to grant such relief.

Rauf Ali Shaik Ali 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 MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2429 OF 2023

¶6

CRIME NO.171/2023 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2:

¶8

RAUF ALI SHAIK ALI AGED 49 YEARS S/O SHAIK ALI, AL MESBAH, DIDUPPA, PUTHUR, KASARGODE, PIN - 671124

¶9

BY ADVS. P.A.MUJEEB RESHMA R. ROSHNI PHILOMINA T.A. ATHIRA UTHAMAN UNNIMAYA H.

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

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

¶12

¶13

T.K.SALIM, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GREENLAND PARTICLE BOARD PVT. LTD., SHELTOR, PERUMBAVOOR. 683 542

¶14

*ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.11.2023 IN CRL.M.A.1 OF 2023

¶15

BY ADVS.

¶16

SMT.T.V.NEEMA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN SMT.SIKHA S.NAIR

¶17

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2023, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.2457/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶18

FOLLOWING:

¶19

BAIL APPL. NOS.2429 & 2457 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶24

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1945

¶25

BAIL APPL. NO. 2457 OF 2023

¶26

CRIME NO.171/2023 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶27

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

¶28

MOOKADA MOOSA NAJEEB AGED 49 YEARS S/O ABDUL AHMAN MOOSA, MOOKADA HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR, MUDICKAL P.O ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683547

¶29

BY ADVS. ASHISH GOPAL K.G T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR) SYAM K.P.

¶30

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT& DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶31

STATE OF KERALA

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

T.K.SALIM S/O.KUNJU MUHAMMED, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GREENLAND PARTICLE BOARD PVT. LTD., SHELTOR, PERUMBAVOOR. 683 542

¶35

*ADDITIONAL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.11.2023 IN CRL.M.A.1 OF 2023

¶36

BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RAJESH VIJAYAN SIKHA S.NAIR

¶37

OTHER PRESENT:

¶38

SMT. T.V. NEEMA, SR.PP

¶39

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2023, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.2429/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶40

BAIL APPL. NOS.2429 & 2457 OF 2023

¶41

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

These applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre-arrest bail.

¶44

The petitioner in B.A.No.2429/2023 is accused No.2 and the petitioner in B.A.No.2457/2023 is accused No.1 in Crime No.171/2023 of Perumbavoor Police Station, Ernakulam, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶45

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant is the managing director of M/s Greenland Particle Boards (P) Ltd. The accused persons in furtherance of a common intention to deceive the defacto complainant so as to obtain wrongful gain, made him believe that the first accused was the commission agent of Alsalama International FZE in UAE and they were ready to import 24 tonnes of Urea for the business purpose of defacto complainant. The defacto complainant sent 15120 US Dollars through his Federal bank account towards the price of urea and the accused persons failed to import urea as agreed by them but neither returned the amount nor imported the urea and thereby

¶46

¶47

BAIL APPL. NOS.2429 & 2457 OF 2023

¶48

committed the above said offences.

¶49

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶50

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and considering the serious allegations raised against the petitioners that the first accused claimed to be an agent of a company situated in UAE, and introduced the second accused to the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant had transferred the amount based on the inducement of the accused to the Company of which accused No.2 had a main role and the fact that there are similar antecedents reported against the petitioners including FIR No.1845/2020 of Perumbavoor Police Station, I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail as it will certainly derail a proper investigation.

¶51

Accordingly, these Bail Applications are dismissed.

¶52

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶53

shg

Rauf Ali Shaik Ali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rauf Ali Shaik 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

Ismail Chakkarath, Vs State of Kerala

Latha. M Vs State of Kerala

Latha. M Vs State of Kerala

Mookada Moosa Najeeb Vs State of Kerala

Ajumon.a.H Vs State of Kerala

Sanu George .C Vs State of Kerala