Allowed

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jul 2023Bail Appl./2653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala granted anticipatory bail to accused in a cheque-bounce and cheating case under Section 438 CrPC, subjecting them to conditions including surrender, interrogation, and cooperation with inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted contingent on surrender, interrogation, bond execution, and adherence to strict conditions regarding cooperation with investigation and restriction on movement/weAPON contact.

Shihab Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2653 OF 2023

¶6

Crime No.508/2022 of Melparamba Police Station

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOS 1 TO 3:

¶8

1 SHIHAB, AGED 35 YEARS S/O MAHIN K, KADAPPALLAM HOUSE, PERUMPALA P.O, PERUMPALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671317 2 MAHIN K, AGED 62 YEARS S/O ABDULLA K, KADAPPALLAM HOUSE, PERUMPALA P.O, PERUMPALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671317 3 SOUDABI, AGED 50 YEARS W/O MAHIN K, KADAPPALLAM HOUSE, PERUMPALA P.O, PERUMPALA VILLAGE, KASARGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671317 BY ADVS. RESHMA E. JACKSON JOHNY

¶9

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶10

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

¶11

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (CRIME NO.508 OF 2022) MELPARAMBA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD, PIN - 67154

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

ADV SREEJA V - SP PP

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

B.A No. 2653 of 2023

O R D E R

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

¶19

2 . The petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.508/2022 of Melparamba Police Station. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable under Sections 416 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

The prosecution case is that, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 borrowed an amount of Rs.9,50,000/- from the defacto complainant, but did not repay the same. Later, the 2^nd accused impersonated and issued a cheque drawn at Chattanchal Urban Co-operative Bank, to the defacto complainant in the name of the 3^rd accused stating that the said cheque was issued in his account. The complaint was submitted by the defacto complainant in such circumstances and on the basis of the same, the present crime was registered. As the petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case, this application for anticipatory bail is submitted.

¶21

¶22

B.A No. 2653 of 2023

¶23

Heard Smt.Reshma E, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶24

The earned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners are innocent of all the allegations. The petitioners were falsely implicated in the said case. According to the learned counsel, there were several financial transactions between the parties and on one occasion the defacto complainant collected blank cheques from the defacto complainant as security of the loan. However, even though the amounts were repaid the cheque was not returned by the defacto complainant and now he is making demands of the amounts with a high rate of interest. A false complaint was submitted in such circumstances at the instance of the defacto complainant, as the petitioners were not ready to pay the said amounts, points out the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said application by pointing out that there are allegations against the petitioners and the matter is under

¶26

¶27

B.A No. 2653 of 2023

¶28

investigation. It is also pointed out that, as part of the investigation, signatures of 2^nd and 3^rd accused were already collected and sent for chemical analysis and the results are awaited.

¶29

I have gone through the records. It is true that, there

¶30

are certain allegations against the petitioner. But, the fact remains that, the allegations are based on documentary evidence. It is pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the sample signatures were already collected and sent for analysis.

¶31

In such circumstances, I am of the view that, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners appears to be not necessary. The

¶32

interest of justice would be served, if the cooperation of the petitioners with the investigation is ensured. Accordingly, this application is disposed of with the following conditions:-

¶33

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

¶34

ii ) After interrogation, the petitioners shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioners

¶35

¶36

B.A No. 2653 of 2023

¶37

executing bonds for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with two sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶38

iii) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting themselves to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶39

iv) The petitioners 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.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

vii) The petitioners 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.

¶43

¶44

B.A No. 2653 of 2023

¶45

viii) The petitioners shall not leave India without the permission of the trial Court.

¶46

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

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A

JUDGE

rpk

Shihab v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shihab 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

Shajahan Vs the State of Kerala

Anoop K.S., Vs State of Kerala

Siju Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Sujimon@Saddam Vs State of Kerala

T.H.Riyas Vs State of Kerala

C.G Balachandran Pillai Vs State of Kerala