Abdul Arshad Vs. State of Kerala

Abdul Arshad vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 10, 2013

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1010693

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1010693
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan
Decided On: Jan 10, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Arshad

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary.4. on going through the annexures it is seen that the petitioners therein were granted bail. the petitioners 4, 5, 7 and 10 were granted anticipatory bail by this court taking note of various allegations against them.5. the facts in these cases are identical except the petitioner in b.a no.9569/2012. there is no reason to take a different view in respect of these petitioners. the petition is allowed as follows: i) the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on or before 19.1.2013, who after interrogation produce the petitioners before the jfcm concerned . ii) if any application for custodial interrogation is being filed, the jfcm court concerned shall after considering the same release the petitioners on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of rs.10,000/- b.a nos.8347/2012 & connected cases :3. (rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. iii) the learned magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. iv) the petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer concerned for interrogation as and when required by him until further orders. v) the petitioners shall surrender their passport before the jfcm concerned. if they are not having a passport, to file affidavits to that effect before the said court. vi) the petitioners shall not leave the state of kerala without prior permission of the jfcm court concerned. vii) the petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. viii) if any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the jfcm concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. sd/- p.bhavadasan judge //true copy// ab p. a to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 20TH POUSHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 8347 of 2012 () ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.CBCID - 396/CR/EOW-1-KLM IN CRIME NO.424/11 OF ADOOR POLICE STATION) .......................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 16.-------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL ARSHAD, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.SYEED MUHAMMED, KANJIRIKKAPALLIL HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.

2. SANTHOSH KUMAR K.A., AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, KRISHNA KRIPA, KONUNGATH HOUSE, PULLOOR P.O., IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR.

3. SIVIN K. VARGHESE AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE, KOONAN HOUSE, THURUVANKAD, PULLOOR P.O., IRINJALAKKUDA,THRISSUR.

4. ANEESH P., AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.GOPUMASH, SAIKRISHNA, MAHILA SAMAJAM ROAD, MAMMIYOOR, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR.

5. P.KRISHNA DAYAL, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, CHANGARAMKANDATH HOUSE,ARIMPOOR P.O., THRISSUR.

6. RADHAKRISHNAN E.M .,AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN, ERUTT HOUSE, CHETTIPARAMBU, IRINJALAKUDA,THRISSUR. Kss ..2/- ..2.... B.A.NO.8347/2012 7. NOUSHAD, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.SAYEED MUHAMMED, KANJIRIKKAPALLIL HOUSE, UDAYANAPURAM P.O.,VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.

8. EDISON, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.PORINCHUNNY, SERENE CASTLE, SARAYA APARTMENTS, SOORYAGRAMAM, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR.

9. KUNHI MUHAMMED, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.KUNHALAN, POOVAMTHODI HOUSE, VATTALLOOR, KURUVA, PERINTHALAMANNA, MALAPPURAM.

10. MAYA K.P., AGED 2 YEARS, D/O.PARAMESWARAN, KONALIL HOUSE, T.VPURAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM.

11. BEENA K.E., AGED 3 YEARS, W/O.GOPINATHAN, KODUVARATHODI HOUSE, VILAVATTOM, THRISSUR.

12. RENJU EDISON, AGED 3 YEARS, W/O.EDISON, SERENE CASTLE, SARAYA APARTMENTS, SOORYAGRAMAM, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR.

13. NIJI K MAJEED, AGED 2 YEARS, D/O.MAJEED, KADAVIMADOM HOUSE, SUJATHA ROAD, THOPPUMPADI, ERNAKULAM.

14. GEORGE ALEXANDER, AGED 5 YEARS, S/O.E.M.ALEXANDER, IDUVAMPARA, MUNDANDA, PURAMATTOM P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. Kss ..3/- ..3.... B.A.NO.8347/2012 15. JISHA BAIJU,AGED 2 YEARS, W/O.BAIJU, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, CHARAMANGALAM, MAYITHARA POST, CHERTHALA.

16. SUDHAKARAN N.V., AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, NEIYSSERY, PALLILAMKARA, KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, (CRIME NO. CBCID-396/CR/EOW-I-KLM) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-01-2013 ALONG WITH B.A.NO.9569 OF 201.AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J --------------------------------------------------- B.A Nos.8347/2012, 9569/2012, 9611/2012,9612/2012, 9613/2012, 9614/2012,9615/2012,9623/2012 & 9624/2012 ---------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2013 ORDER

These petitions have been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by the Managing Directors and the Directors of the Company Bizarre Business Corporation Ltd. a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioners alleged to have collected the amount from various persons promising to make available commodities at reduced price in supermarkets to be opened by them at the various places. It is also pointed out that the company had purchased properties for establishing supermarkets. But in the meanwhile, one of the persons who had invested, filed a complaint against the company. The company therefore could not undertake the venture.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the company had purchased properties, the details of which have been given in Annexure 6 in B.A No.9569/2012. The company had no intention to cheat anybody. The learned counsel pointed out that the 1st and 3rd petitioners in B.A No.9569/2012 has been granted bail as per Annexure 1 and the B.A Nos.8347/2012 & connected cases :

2. 2nd petitioner as per Annexure 2. The petitioners 4 and 5 granted anticipatory bail as per Annexure 3, petitioners 7 and 10 as per Annexure 4. The learned counsel also pointed out that the allegation in all the complaint are also identical and there is no reason to deny bail to the petitioners herein.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor only pointed out that the investigation in all these cases are going on and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary.

4. On going through the annexures it is seen that the petitioners therein were granted bail. The petitioners 4, 5, 7 and 10 were granted anticipatory bail by this Court taking note of various allegations against them.

5. The facts in these cases are identical except the petitioner in B.A No.9569/2012. There is no reason to take a different view in respect of these petitioners. The petition is allowed as follows: i) The petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 19.1.2013, who after interrogation produce the petitioners before the JFCM concerned . ii) If any application for custodial interrogation is being filed, the JFCM Court concerned shall after considering the same release the petitioners on bail on each of them executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- B.A Nos.8347/2012 & connected cases :

3. (Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said Court. iii) The learned Magistrate shall ensure the identity of the sureties and also the veracity of the tax receipts before granting bail. iv) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer concerned for interrogation as and when required by him until further orders. v) The petitioners shall surrender their passport before the JFCM concerned. If they are not having a passport, to file affidavits to that effect before the said court. vi) The petitioners shall not leave the State of Kerala without prior permission of the JFCM Court concerned. vii) The petitioners shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witness. viii) If any of the condition is violated, the bail granted shall stand cancelled and the JFCM concerned, on being satisfied of the said fact, may take such proceedings as are available to him in law. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN Judge //True Copy// ab P. A to Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Abdul Arshad vs State of Kerala Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.Bhavadasan