Skip to content


Mohammed Ali Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantMohammed Ali
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....public prosecutor has opposed the application. it is submitted that as per version of the de facto complainant, at a time when he was working abroad, the petitioner and the second accused, his wife collected rs.33 = lakhs from him for purchase of some property and later, a further sum of rs.7 lakhs was collected from the de facto complainant for starting a business in mobile phone accessories. the de facto complainant send mobile phone accessories worth rs.1 crore from abroad to the petitioner and the second accused. the money was misappropriated by the petitioner and second accused.3. learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. the whole dispute between the petitioner and the de facto b.a.no.5030 of 2014 2 complainant was settled in mediation and as per settlement,.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY,THE15H DAY OF JULY201424TH ASHADHA, 1936 Bail Appl..No. 5030 of 2014 (C) ------------------------------------------- [CRIME NO. 728/2013 OF KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM DISTRICT] ........... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- MOHAMMED ALI, AGED42YEARS, S/O.ABOOBAKKER, ITTIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.THAVANOOR, MUVVANKARA DESAM, PONNANI TALUK, PIN- 679 573. BY ADVS.SRI.P.G.SURESH, SRI.G.SUDHEER (THURAVOOR), SRI.RAJAN VISHNURAJ, SRI. HARISH VASUDEVAN. RESPONDENT/STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUTTIPURAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682 031. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V.S. SREEJITH. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1507-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J --------------------------------------- B.A.No.5030 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2014 ORDER

Petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.728 of 2013 of the Kuttipuram Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apprehends arrest and has filed the application.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the application. It is submitted that as per version of the de facto complainant, at a time when he was working abroad, the petitioner and the second accused, his wife collected Rs.33 = lakhs from him for purchase of some property and later, a further sum of Rs.7 lakhs was collected from the de facto complainant for starting a business in Mobile phone accessories. The de facto complainant send Mobile phone accessories worth Rs.1 Crore from abroad to the petitioner and the second accused. The money was misappropriated by the petitioner and second accused.

3. Learned counsel submits that the allegations are not true. The whole dispute between the petitioner and the de facto B.A.No.5030 of 2014 2 complainant was settled in Mediation and as per settlement, four items of immovable properties were transfered in the name of the de facto complainant as per Annexures-A1 and A2, assignment deeds. A cheque of Rs.5 lakhs was also given to the de facto complainant. The Bank filed O.A.No.389 of 2012 before the DRT concerned against the de facto complainant and the petitioner for recovery of money. As per the settlement, Rs.30,00,000/- was payable to the petitioner by the de facto complainant and that amount was not paid. Hence the petitioner was constrained to withhold payment of amount as per the cheque. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is willing to file affidavit stating above facts before the jurisdictional magistrate.

4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances I am inclined to think that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. At the same time, the interest of the de facto complainant has also to be protected. Application is allowed as under: (i) Petitioner shall surrender before the officer investigating Crime No.728 of 2013 of the Kuttipuram Police B.A.No.5030 of 2014 3 Station on 22.07.2014 at 10.00 a.m for interrogation. (ii) In case interrogation is not completed that day, it is open to the officer concerned to direct presence of the petitioner on other day/days and time as may be specified by him which the petitioner shall comply. (iii) Petitioner shall co-operate with investigation of the case. (iv) It is open to the petitioner to produce all relevant documents in his custody, control and possession before the investigating officer and releating to the matter under investigation. (v) In case arrest of the petitioner is recorded, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional magistrate the same day. (vi) On such production the petitioner shall be released (if not required to be detained otherwise) on his executing bond for 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with two sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate and subject to the following conditions: (a) One of the sureties shall be a close relative of the petitioner. B.A.No.5030 of 2014 4 (b) Petitioner shall surrender his passport before the learned magistrate while executing the bond and in case he has none, file affidavit to that effect. (c) Petitioner shall file affidavit before the learned magistrate while executing the bail bond detailing the immovable properties his owns (other than said to be transfered to the de facto complainant) and undertaking that the said properties would not be sold (subject to the claim of the Bank or any other person) or otherwise encumbered until otherwise ordered by the learned magistrate. (d) Petitioner shall file attested copy of the said affidavit before the Registrar/Sub Registrar concerned within two weeks from the day of executing the bail bond. (e) Petitioner shall report to the officer investigating the case on every alternate Saturday between 10.00 a.m and 12.00 p.m for a period of two months or until filing of the final report, whichever is earlier. (f) Petitioner shall report to the investigating officer as and when required for interrogation. (g) Petitioner shall not get involved in any offence B.A.No.5030 of 2014 5 during the period of this bail. (g) Petitioner shall not intimidate or influence the witnesses. (vii) In case the petitioner violates any of condition Nos. (d) to (g), it is open to the investigating officer to move the learned magistrate for cancellation of the bail as held in P.K Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (AIR2006SC100. Sd/- THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. AS /True Copy/ P.A. to Judge


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //