Shamsudheen Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1118496
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-08-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH
AppellantShamsudheen
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice thomas p.joseph wednesday, the8h day of january201418th pousha, 1935 bail appl..no. 8798 of 2013 () ------------------------------------------ (crime no. 1693/2013 of mannarkkad police station , palakkad) ................. petitioner/accused no.2 to4: -------------------------------------------------- 1. shamsudheen, aged65years, s/o.bava, thathadicthil house, varodu p.o., ottapalam taluk, palakkad district.2. assiya, aged52years, w/o.shamsudheen, thathadicthil house, varodu p.o., ottapalam taluk, palakkad district.3. asha benazir, aged31years, d/o.abdul azeez, kottekkattil house, vaniyampara p.o., thrissur district. by adv. sri.nireesh mathew respondent/complainant : -------------------------------------------- state of kerala, rep. by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam. by public prosecutor sri. rajesh vijayan this bail application having come up for admission on0801-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: vs thomas p. joseph, j.========================= bail application no. 8798 of 2013 ============================ dated this the 8th day of january, 2014 order petitioners are accused, in crime no.1693 of 2013 of the mannarkkad police station for the offences punishable under secs.498a and 406 r/w.sec.34 of the penal code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.2. application is opposed by the learned public prosecutor. learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant also opposed the application. it is submitted that a vehicle belonging to the de facto complainant was sold by the accused for rs.4,70,000/-, the de facto complainant was made to believe that the said amount would be deposit in her account but that amount was misappropriated, apart from the ornaments of the de facto complainant. it is also submitted that there was an b.a no. 8798 of 2013 2 agreement executed between the parents of the first accused and the de facto complainant before the mahallu committee whereby the parents of the first accused had agreed to return the ornaments and rs.4,70,000/-. that also is not complied.3. learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true and that at any rate the vehicle was sold by the first accused for which the petitioners cannot be held liable. having regard to the circumstances above stated and considering the agreement allegedly entered into between the parents of the first accused and the de facto complainant, i am inclined to impose conditions while granting relief to the petitioner. application is disposed of as under: petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating crime no.1693 of 2013 of the mannarkkad police station and shall be released, if not required to be detained otherwise on their executing bond for rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate subject b.a no. 8798 of 2013 3 to the following conditions:- a) one of the sureties shall be a close relatives of any of the petitioner. b) petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation at all reasonable time and places.. c) petitioners shall jointly deposit rs.4,70,000/- (rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) in a nationalised bank for a period of two years (renewable as per the order of the learned magistrate) and produce the fd receipt before the learned magistrate within two months from their release on bail. d) in case the petitioners or any of them are made liable to pay compensation, such compensation could be realised from the amount in deposit to the extent possible. e) petitioners shall not get involved in similar offence during the period of this bail. f) petitioners shall not intimidate/influence the witnesses. f) it is made clear that in case any of the above condition is violated, it is open to the investigating b.a no. 8798 of 2013 4 officer or the de facto complainant to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate (as held in p.k. shaji v. state of kerala (air2006supreme court 100). sd/- thomas p.joseph, judge //true copy// p.a. to judge smv b.a no. 8798 of 2013 5
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE8H DAY OF JANUARY201418TH POUSHA, 1935 Bail Appl..No. 8798 of 2013 () ------------------------------------------ (CRIME NO. 1693/2013 OF MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD) ................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 TO4: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED65YEARS, S/O.BAVA, THATHADICTHIL HOUSE, VARODU P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2. ASSIYA, AGED52YEARS, W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, THATHADICTHIL HOUSE, VARODU P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

3. ASHA BENAZIR, AGED31YEARS, D/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, KOTTEKKATTIL HOUSE, VANIYAMPARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT : -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0801-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: vs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

========================= Bail Application No. 8798 of 2013 ============================ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2014 ORDER

Petitioners are accused, in Crime No.1693 of 2013 of the Mannarkkad police station for the offences punishable under Secs.498A and 406 r/w.Sec.34 of the Penal Code, apprehend arrest and have filed this application.

2. Application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant also opposed the application. It is submitted that a vehicle belonging to the de facto complainant was sold by the accused for Rs.4,70,000/-, the de facto complainant was made to believe that the said amount would be deposit in her account but that amount was misappropriated, apart from the ornaments of the de facto complainant. It is also submitted that there was an B.A No. 8798 of 2013 2 agreement executed between the parents of the first accused and the de facto complainant before the mahallu committee whereby the parents of the first accused had agreed to return the ornaments and Rs.4,70,000/-. That also is not complied.

3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true and that at any rate the vehicle was sold by the first accused for which the petitioners cannot be held liable. Having regard to the circumstances above stated and considering the agreement allegedly entered into between the parents of the first accused and the de facto complainant, I am inclined to impose conditions while granting relief to the petitioner. Application is disposed of as under: Petitioners shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.1693 of 2013 of the Mannarkkad police station and shall be released, if not required to be detained otherwise on their executing bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate subject B.A No. 8798 of 2013 3 to the following conditions:- a) One of the sureties shall be a close relatives of any of the petitioner. b) Petitioners shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation at all reasonable time and places.. c) Petitioners shall jointly deposit Rs.4,70,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy thousand only) in a nationalised bank for a period of two years (renewable as per the order of the learned magistrate) and produce the FD receipt before the learned magistrate within two months from their release on bail. d) In case the petitioners or any of them are made liable to pay compensation, such compensation could be realised from the amount in deposit to the extent possible. e) Petitioners shall not get involved in similar offence during the period of this bail. f) Petitioners shall not intimidate/influence the witnesses. f) It is made clear that in case any of the above condition is violated, it is open to the Investigating B.A No. 8798 of 2013 4 Officer or the de facto complainant to seek cancellation of the bail granted hereby by moving application before the learned magistrate (as held in P.K. Shaji V. State of Kerala (AIR2006Supreme Court 100). Sd/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE //true copy// P.A. to Judge Smv B.A No. 8798 of 2013 5