Kerala High Court
Muhammed Sahir vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3292 OF 2024
CRIME NO.6/2024 OF CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION, KOLLAM CITY,
KOLLAM
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3:
MUHAMMED SAHIR
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O MOIDEEN KUTTY, PANIKKARKUNI VEEDU, VENGALAM
P.O., CHEMANCHERRY, ELATHOOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,
PIN - 673303
BY ADVS.
K.V.ANIL KUMAR
SWAPNA VIJAYAN
RADHIKA S.ANIL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
BY ADV.
SRI.M.P.PRASHANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.3292 of 2024
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------
B.A.No.3292 of 2024
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024
ORDER
This Bail Application is filed under Section 439
of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)
2. The petitioner is an accused in Crime
No.6/2024 of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kollam. The
above case is registered against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Sections 419, 420
r/w 34 IPC and also under Sections 66C and 66D of
the I T Act.
3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
With an intention to cheat and get unlawful gain
from the defacto complainant, the accused has
invited the defacto complainant to join in a WhatsApp
Group for share business and thereby she transferred
a total amount of Rs.63,50,000/- in several
transactions to various accounts of accused. It is also
alleged that, out of the same, Rs.7,12,345/- was
allowed to be withdrawn by the defacto complainant
and then she sustained unlawful loss of Rs.56,
37,655/-. The petitioner was arrested with an
allegation that an amount of Rs.2,82,390 transferred
by the defacto complainant to the account of the
petitioner was withdrawn by him. Hence it is alleged
that the accused committed the afore said offences.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. It is true that the allegation against the
petitioner is serious. But the main allegation is
against the 1st accused. The allegation against the
petitioner is that, certain amount was deposited in his
account and the same was withdrawn by him. The
petitioner is in custody from 15.03.2024. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, I think this
Bail application can be allowed after imposing
stringent conditions.
6. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle
that the bail is the rule and the jail is the exception.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chidambaram. P v
Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE
870), after considering all the earlier judgments,
observed that, the basic jurisprudence relating to bail
remains the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the
rule and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that
the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
7. Considering the dictum laid down in the above
decision and considering the facts and circumstances
of this case, this Bail Application is allowed with the
following directions:
1. Petitioner shall be released on bail on
executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
2. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer for interrogation as and
when required. The petitioner shall co-operate
with the investigation and shall not, directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer.
3. Petitioner shall not leave India without
permission of the jurisdictional Court.
4. Petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which he is accused,
or suspected, of the commission of which he is
suspected.
5. Petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer on all Mondays at 10 A.M.
till final report is filed.
6. If any of the above conditions are
violated by the petitioner, the jurisdictional
Court can cancel the bail in accordance to law,
even though the bail is granted by this Court.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
DM
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 3292/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-A A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
6 / 2024 OF CYBER POLICE STATION,
KOLLAM
ANNEXURE-B A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
27.03.2024 IN CRL.M.P. NO. 2201 /
2024 OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
