Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013 10TH MAGHA 193 Bail Appl..No. 9551 of 2012 () ------------------------------ CRIME NO. 2565/2012 OF KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT (*CRIME NO. 2565/12 CORRECTED AS CRIME NO. 2562/12 AS PER ORDER DT. 9-1-2013 IN CRL.M.A. NO. 356/2013 IN BA NO. 9551/2012) ------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- MOHAMMED ASHARAF, 56 YEARS OF AGE, S/O. LATE ABDU, PUZHANAKARALLETH HOUSE, ONACHAMMAVU MATHILAKAM P.O.,TRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.JOJO PAPPACHAN SRI.Y.MOHAMMED NASARULLAH RESPONDENT : ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA T.Y. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn P. BHAVADASAN, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A. No. 9551 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of January, 2013. ORDER The petitioner is one of the accused in Crime No. 2562 of 2012 of Kodungallur Police Station, who is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner and his companion accused is that they promised job visa for the son of the defacto complainant and received Rs.6 Lakhs from him. But they failed to procure visa for the son of the defacto complainant and thereby cheated them.
3. The petitioners would say that the allegations are totally false and the story is entirely different. He has borrowed certain amount from the defacto complainant and repayment was being made in instalments. While so, the defacto complainant forced the petitioner to execute a sale deed, to which course the petitioner was not amenable. B.A.9551/2012. 2 That made the defacto complainant to file a false complaint against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that on going through the records, it can be seen that the petitioner could not have promised any job or visa to the son of the defacto complainant as he had returned from abroad about 18 years ago and he has no connection there at present. It is also pointed out that the defacto complainant had taken blank cheques from the petitioner for the amount borrowed by him from the defacto complainant. Learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted on him.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor very vehemently opposed the application and pointed out that investigation is at an infant stage. It is also pointed out that if the petitioner is released on bail, that may impede the investigation. B.A.9551/2012”
6. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and having perused the records, it does not appear that the petitioner is totally innocent. But there seems to be some force in the grievance voiced by the petitioner. It is seen that a cheque for a sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs has been given by the petitioner to the defacto complainant. But there is nothing to show that either the cheque has been presented or it was dishonoured though as of now, there is nothing to show that the money has been returned or job visa has been procured. A deeper probe into the veracity of the allegations is not warranted at this point of time. Suffice is to say, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that this is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction needs to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, this application is allowed on the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer on or before 6.2.2013, who, B.A.9551/2012. 4 after interrogation shall produce him before the JFCM court concerned, which court, on application for bail being moved by the petitioner, shall release him on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the said court. ii) The learned Magistrate may ensure the identity of the sureties and the veracity of the tax receipts produced by the sureties for the purpose of executing the bond. iii) Petitioner shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 10. a.m. till final report is laid. B.A.9551/2012. 5 iv) Petitioner shall not tamper or attempt to tamper with the evidence or influence or try to influence the witnesses. v) If any condition is violated, bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled, and the JFCM concerned may take such steps as are available to him in law. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.