Shahin T. vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 18, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444276

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/1444276
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.
Decided On: Mar 18, 2022
Case Number: Bail Appl./542/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Shahin T.

Respondent

State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Excerpt

.....of mangalapuram police station, thiruvananthapuram district alleging commission of offences under sections 420 read with section 34 of the ipc.2. the allegation against the petitioners is that, by givingfalse promises, they induced the defacto complainant to invest money in a firm dealing with cryptocurrency. it is alleged that the company in question simply vanished one fine day and thereby the petitioners committed the offences alleged against them.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in thematter. it is submitted that the petitioners themselves were victims of fraud and they had also lost their money invested with the company. it is submitted that the petitioners have absolutely nothing to do with the company and the defacto complainant hasno case that any amount of money was directly given to the petitioners. it is submitted that the amounts of money which were transferred to the accounts of the petitioners were for purchasing cryptocurrency already purchased by the petitioner and was not for direct purchase of any cryptocurrency. it is submitted that, at any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation.4. the learned public prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. it is submitted that the defacto complainant and 15 others were induced to invest huge sums of money (a total ofrs.34,94,790/-) into cryptocurrency owing to the false representations by the petitioners herein. it is submitted that the entire money was transferred through bank and the transactions cannot be denied by the petitioners. it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.5. having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, i am of the opinion that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. the case against them can be properly investigated without their custodial interrogation.6. in the.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943 PETITIONERS: 1 SHAHIN T. AGED 32 YEARS 2 SARA JALAL AGED 27 YEARS 3 THAHA M. AGED 69 YEARS 4 MEHARUNNISA S. AGED 59 YEARS 5 SHAJIN T. AGED 39 YEARS BY ADVS. T.I.UNNIRAJA S.G.SREEKANTH S.BADUSHA SREEJITH S. JOEL ANTONY GEORGE FAHEEM AHSAN.S RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGHCOURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANGALAPURAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695501 3 ARUN, AGED 37 YEARS S/O MADHUSOODHANAN PILLAI, VISMAYAM, KEEZHPATTU, MAYYANADU, KOLLAM, KERALA-691303 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 15/2/2022 IN CRIM.MA.NO.1/2022.

SRI. M.C. ASHI (PP) THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram district alleging commission of offences under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, by giving

false promises, they induced the defacto complainant to invest money in a firm dealing with cryptocurrency. It is alleged that the company in question simply vanished one fine day and thereby the petitioners committed the offences alleged against them.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are absolutely innocent in the

matter. It is submitted that the petitioners themselves were victims of fraud and they had also lost their money invested with the company. It is submitted that the petitioners have absolutely nothing to do with the company and the defacto complainant has

no case that any amount of money was directly given to the petitioners. It is submitted that the amounts of money which were transferred to the accounts of the petitioners were for purchasing cryptocurrency already purchased by the petitioner and was not for direct purchase of any cryptocurrency. It is submitted that, at any rate, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary for the purposes of any investigation.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail. It is submitted that the defacto complainant and 15 others were induced to invest huge sums of money (a total of

Rs.34,94,790/-) into cryptocurrency owing to the false representations by the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the entire money was transferred through bank and the transactions cannot be denied by the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, I am of the opinion that the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions. The case against them can be properly investigated without their custodial interrogation.

6. In the result, this bail application is allowed. It is

directed that the petitioners shall be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station subject to the following conditions:-

(I) Petitioners shall execute separate bonds for sums of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

(ii) Petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) before the jurisdictional court;

(iii) Petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station as and when called upon to do so;

(iv) Petitioners shall not attempt to interfere with the investigation, influence or intimidate any witness in Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station;

(v) Petitioners shall not involve in any other crime while on bail. If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the Investigating officer in Crime No.803/2019 of Mangalapuram Police Station may file an application before the jurisdictional Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AJ APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 542/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit1 ORDER DATED 04/12/2021 OF ADL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE- VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties Shahin T. vs State of Kerala, Represented by the Public Prose... Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Gopinath P.