Dismissed

Sajina v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 Mar 2023Bail Appl./8336/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that prima facie evidence of large-scale financial fraud and the accused's inability to explain significant bank deposits during interrogation made custodial interrogation essential, and bail would be fatal to the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioners were directed to cooperate with custodial interrogation to satisfy queries regarding unexplained financial transactions.

Sajina 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 A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 8336 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.668/2022 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2:

¶8

1 SAJINA, AGED 36 YEARS W/O RAMADAS V, NAIKARUMBIL HOUSE, KOOTTAYI, PADINHAREKKARA POST, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676562

¶9

2 RAMADAS V, AGED 50 YEARS S/O VELAYUDHAN R, KALLENGONAM, CHITHALI P.O., VTC: KUZHALMANNAM-I CHITHALI P.O., ALATHUR, NOW RESIDING AT NAIKARUMBIL HOUSE, KOOTTAYI, PADINHAREKKARA POST, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676562 BY ADVS. S.RAJEEV ANILKUMAR C.R. V.VINAY M.S.ANEER SARATH K.P. PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

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

¶12

2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER TIRUR POLICE STATION (CRIME NO 668/2022 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM), PIN - 676101 3 ASHIQ ALI, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL KHADER, KUZHIPPAYIL HOUSE, THEKKUMURI P.O., THIRUR TALUK, MALAPPRUAM DISTRICT IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2023 IN CRL.M.A.2/2022

¶13

BY ADVS. M.B.SHYNI RAMEES P.K.

¶14

P G MANU SRPP

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.03.2023 AND THE COURT ON 31.03.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Dated this the 31^st day of March, 2023

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accused Nos.1 and 2 in crime No.688/2022 of Tirur police

¶21

station, Malappuram.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant also was heard in detail.

¶23

The genesis of the prosecution case is based on a private complaint dated 20.07.2022 lodged by Ashik Ali, the defacto complainant, before the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Tirur. The allegations in the complaint, in fact, reduced into allegations in the FIR. The specific allegation

¶24

is that the defacto complainant ran a gents dress shop by

¶25

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

style and name 'VOG PHARMAN' at the ground floor of Mayyeri Arcade, Thazhepalam, Tirur Town, in between 2016 and 2020. While so, he maintained a cordial relationship with the accused herein since the accused persons also ran business at the adjoining room. Further allegation is that while continuing the cordial relationship, there were financial dealings, involving small amount, between the defacto complainant and the accused. Thereafter, the first accused offered to join in the partnership business started in 2018.

¶28

After a few days, accused Nos.1 and 2 approached the defacto complainant and informed that the money intended to be invested in the business got trapped for want of clearance from the Income Tax Department in Sub Treasury, and only after getting the money cleared, entrustment, as suggested earlier, would be realised. Thereafter, the accused demanded Rs.12 lakh as temporary loan. The defacto

¶29

¶30

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶31

complainant, as instructed by the first accused, pledged 125 sovereigns of gold ornaments belonged to his family members and entrusted the money to the first accused. The further allegation is that thereafter also, on assuring to repay the amount from the amount to be released from the treasury, about Rs.1 crore also collected by the accused on several occasions. This is the crux of the prosecution case, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶32

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶33

during pendency of this bail application, as per an oral direction of this Court, the petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer on 29.12.2022 and they were interrogated in detail. Therefore, further interrogation of the petitioners is not required. It is submitted further that even though the defacto complainant filed complaint before the Dy. Superintendent of Police on 22.07.2022, on 08.10.2022

¶34

¶35

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶36

Annexure II complaint was lodged by the first petitioner before the Station House Officer, Tirur. As per Annexure II, it has been stated that the defacto complainant herein requested the first petitioner to stand as a surety for his rice mill business and on his compulsion, the first petitioner opened an account in ESAF Small Finance Bank and obtained one cheque book containing 25 cheque leaves. Thereafter, two signed cheque leaves were entrusted to the defacto complainant and the other unsigned cheque leaves also were kept by the defacto complainant. It is stated further that the present crime and the allegations therein are with intention to squeeze the first petitioner to pay money on knowing that she obtained some money after selling the property of her husband. It is submitted further that even though search was conducted by the Investigating Officer as on 03.09.2022, on 12.09.2022, the first petitioner lodged Annexure-VI complaint before the

¶37

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

Superintendent of Police, Manjeri, challenging the search, mainly on the ground that the police officers, without any authority or search warrant, conducted search and taken away some cheque leaves belonged to the first petitioner at the time when her parents alone were at the house. The further allegation is that on the same day, the police party reached the beauty parlour run by her elder sister and she was threatened to implicate in the present crime.

¶40

It is pointed out further that in Annexure VI complaint, financial dealing to the tune of Rs.2 lakh with

¶41

the defacto complainant was stated with plea of discharge and the attempt of the defacto complainant to get more money from the first petitioner by implicating her in the present crime and repeatedly harassing her by using the police party. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made in the complaint dated 22.07.2022 filed

¶42

¶43

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶44

by the defacto complainant cannot be believed. According to him, Rs.2 lakh, admittedly, was received by the first petitioner and thereafter, the said amount was discharged.

¶45

However, under the impression that the defacto complainant wanted to get security documents, two signed cheque leaves and remaining cheques in a cheque book containing 25 leaves were obtained and now the defacto complainant has been keeping the same. It is submitted further that since effective interrogation in this matter already carried out on 29.12.2022, the petitioners need not

¶46

be arrested and the investigation can be achieved successfully and for which, the petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation.

¶47

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that Annexure II complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant on 08.10.2022 when

¶48

the anticipatory bail plea at the instance of the petitioners

¶49

¶50

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶51

was negatived by the Sessions Court as per order dated 07.10.2022 in Crl.M.C.No.980/2022. According to the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, the allegation as regards the entrustment of money to the accused herein occurred within a span of three years and the money was handed over directly and therefore, no bank account to show the same. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that issuance of two blank signed cheques along with 23 other cheques unsigned in one cheque book are not known to the petitioner.

¶52

It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant that other complaints of similar nature were also filed against the petitioners and he has placed copy of the said complaint along with the objection.

¶53

In the report of the Investigating Officer, it is

¶54

stated that, during investigation, it has been revealed that

¶55

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022 9

¶56

by using the name, address, Aadhaar number and phone number of the accused, they have availed loan from various Banks in Tirur. It is submitted further that in between 08.01.2017 to 21.06.2022, the accused herein pledged gold ornaments for a sum of Rs.1 crore in NTC Bank [800 gm] and thereafter, the gold ornaments were released. Statement showing the said translation was collected by the Investigating Officer. It is also stated that from the account statements given by the Indian Overseas Bank, Tirur Branch, Rs.1,67,48,602/- was deposited in the account of the accused and out of which, Rs.1,67,48,446/was withdrawn on 31.01.2016. It is reported by the Investigating Officer that at about 11 am as on 29.12.2022, the first accused met the Investigating Officer and she was subjected to interrogation. During interrogation, the first accused failed to give rationale answers to many questions. It is reported that when

¶57

¶58

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶59

question was put regarding the amount to the tune of Rs.1,67,48,446/- found in the account of the first accused in Indian Overseas Bank, she did not give any satisfactory answer. Similarly, the transaction to the tune of Rs.7,06,506/- with Muthoot Fincorp, Tirur from 11.09.2017 and 08.10.2021 also, no satisfactory answer was given. Further, no satisfactory answer given to the question as to the offer regarding pendency of Rs.50 lakh with treasury. She also failed to give rationale answer with regard to Rs.64 lakh obtained by the sale of family property of the husband of the first petitioner. It is reported that, based on the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur, when search was conducted, cheques with seal of treasury, letter pad with emblem of Ministry of Finance, letter from Income Tax Department etc. were recovered and the first accused failed to give rationale answers regarding possession of the same. Further, it is

¶60

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶61

¶62

stated that when question was asked as to receipt of Rs.5,30,000/- from one Al-Ameen and Rs.12 lakh and 30 sovereigns of gold from one Sainulabdeen. Rs.44 lakh and 5 sovereigns of gold from Ibrahim also, no rationale answers were given. The report would go to show that the first petitioner herein has no job or income. It is reported further that the petitioners collected amounts from 50 persons and misappropriated crores of rupees therefrom.

¶63

The learned Public Prosecutor also highlighted the report extracted herein above while opposing bail and it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that as per a loan account maintained by Sajina/first accused herein in Muthoot Fincorp, deposits of amount from 11.09.2017 to 08.10.2021 and withdrawal of the same within two - three days also could be gathered. The learned Public Prosecutor also given emphasis to the statement given by Al-Ameen, Muhzin and Sainulabid to show receipt of

¶64

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶65

¶66

money and gold ornaments by the first accused in the similar fashion. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, on perusal of the materials herein above referred and other materials form part of the case diary, the allegations could be seen, prima facie. Thus, effective investigation in this crime could be materialised by arrest and custodial interrogation of the petitioners. Therefore, grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered. It is also submitted that even though as on 29.12.2022, the first accused/first petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer, she did not give satisfactory answers with regard to the vital aspects as extracted herein above.

¶67

While resisting the contentions raised by the defacto complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure V is the bank statement of the first petitioner and where Rs.2 lakh and similar amounts

¶68

¶69

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶70

were transferred by one Sreejith, co-brother of first petitioner and Shinoj, a family friend of the first petitioner, for the purpose of construction of the residential house of Shinoj, could be noticed and apart from that, no remittance to justify crores of amount as alleged by the defacto complainant could be foreseeable and therefore, allegations are false. That apart, the illness of the second petitioner also is pointed out to pursue the relief of prearrest bail.

¶71

On perusal of the case diary along with relevant documents placed by the respective counsel, during investigation, it has been revealed that by using the name, address, Aadhaar number and phone number of the accused, they have availed loan from various Banks in Tirur. It is submitted further that in between 08.01.2017 to 21.06.2022, the accused herein pledged gold ornaments for a sum of Rs.1 crore in NTC Bank [800 gm] and thereafter, the gold

¶72

¶73

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶74

ornaments were released. Statement showing the said translation was collected by the Investigating Officer. It is also stated that from the account statements given by the Indian Overseas Bank, Tirur Branch, Rs.1,67,48,602/- was deposited in the account of the accused and out of which, Rs.1,67,48,446/- was withdrawn on 31.01.2016. It is reported by the Investigating Officer that at about 11 am as on 29.12.2022, the first accused met the Investigating Officer and she was subjected to interrogation. During interrogation, the first accused failed to give rationale answers to many questions. It is reported that when question was put regarding the amount to the tune of Rs.1,67,48,446/- found in the account of the first accused in Indian Overseas Bank, she did not give any satisfactory answer. Similarly, the transaction to the tune of Rs.7,06,506/- with Muthoot Fincorp, Tirur from 11.09.2017 and 08.10.2021 also, no satisfactory answer was given. Further, no satisfactory answer given to the question as to the offer regarding pendency of Rs.50 lakh with treasury.

¶75

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶76

¶77

She also failed to give rationale answer with regard to Rs.64 lakh obtained by the sale of family property of the husband of the first petitioner. It is reported that, based on the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tirur, when search was conducted, cheques with seal of treasury, letter pad with emblem of Ministry of Finance, letter from Income Tax Department etc. were recovered and the first accused failed to give rationale answers regarding possession of the same. Further, it is stated that when question was asked as to receipt of Rs.5,30,000/- from one Al-Ameen and Rs.12 lakh and 30 sovereigns of gold from one Sainulabdeen. Rs.44 lakh and 5 sovereigns of gold from Ibrahim also, no rationale answers was given. The report would go to show that the first petitioner herein has no job or income. It is reported further that the petitioners collected amounts from 50 persons and misappropriated crores of rupees therefrom.

¶78

Thus, it appears that the allegations made by the defacto complainant, which led to registration of this crime,

¶79

¶80

BAIL APPL. No.8336 OF 2022

¶81

have been established, prima facie. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners herein alleged to have borrowed money and gold ornaments from Al-Ameen, Muhzin and Sainulabid, as discussed herein above. In fact, arrest, custodial interrogation and recording of satisfactory answers to the queries, which were hesitated to be answered by the first petitioner when she surrendered before the Investigating Officer, as directed by this Court, are absolutely essential. Similar exercise is required in relation to the second accused also.

¶82

In such a case, involving scam of crores of rupees, grant of anticipatory bail cannot be considered as the same would be fatal to the investigation. Therefore, this petition lack merits and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶83

Sd/-

¶84

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶85

nkr

Sajina v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajina 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

M.K.Siyad Vs State of Kerala

Sreekuttan @ Ananthu Vs State of Kerala

Anjumol K.V Vs State of Kerala

Shiju G Vs State of Kerala

Liji Jees Vs the Station House Officer

Abhiram Vs State of Kerala