Muhamed Gadhafi vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 11272 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 11272 Ker
Judgement Date : 19 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Muhamed Gadhafi 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. 2844 OF 2024
  CRIME NO.339/2024 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2024 IN CRMC NO.905 OF
       2024 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1:

              MUHAMED GADHAFI,
              AGED 45 YEARS
              S/O K.H ABDULLA, KONNANKUDY HOUSE,
              PARAPPURAM, PERUMBAVOOR P.O.,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 542.
              BY ADVS.
              P.K.VARGHESE
              M.T.SAMEER
              DHANESH V.MADHAVAN
              JERRY MATHEW
              RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ
              CHIPPY AMBUDAS


RESPONDENT:

              STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
              HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031.


              PP SRI PRASANTH M P


THIS   BAIL     APPLICATION   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
19.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 2844 OF 2024

                                                           2




                                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                                       ..........................................
                                        B.A.No. 2844 of 2024
                                   .............................................
                       Dated this the 19th day of April, 2024


                                                     ORDER

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973.

2. Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 339/2024 of

Perumbavoor Police Station. The above case is registered

against the petitioner, alleging offences punishable under

Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

3. The prosecution case is that, the petitioner herein along with

the second accused, with an intention to defraud and deceive

the de facto complainant promised to secure job to him and

his friend in Poland, and accordingly, the first accused BAIL APPL. NO. 2844 OF 2024

received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each from them on

02.01.2023. Thereafter, the first accused again received

Rs.80,000/- each from them. On 12.07.2023, as directed by

the first accused they have transferred an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- each to the account of the second accused.

The accused persons received Rs.3,80,000/- each from the de

facto complainant and his friend. They have taken to

Armenia, but the accused persons failed to keep their promise

to provide job in Poland, and hence, committed the offences

as alleged.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Public

Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the

entire allegations are accepted, the offence under Section 420

of IPC is not made out. The learned counsel further

submitted that the complainant and his friend were taken to BAIL APPL. NO. 2844 OF 2024

Armenia and got a job in Armenia with a sufficient salary. It

is also submitted that on 25.01.2024, the de facto

complainant and his friend were sent back to India without

giving them TRC for creating some problems in Armenia

under the influence of alcohol. It was further submitted that

the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions, if this

Court release him on anticipatory bail.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application

and submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are

serious in nature.

7. This Court considered the contentions of the learned counsel

for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is

admitted fact that the de facto complainant and his friend

were taken to Armenia by the petitioner. According to the de

facto complainant, they offered job at Poland. I do not want

to make any observations regarding the merits of the case. BAIL APPL. NO. 2844 OF 2024

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of

the considered opinion that the custodial interrogation of the

petitioner is not necessary and petitioner can be released on

anticipatory bail after imposing stringent conditions.

9. 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.

10. 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:

i. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation;

BAIL APPL. NO. 2844 OF 2024

ii.After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer proposes to arrest the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

Iii.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;