Kerala High Court
Abdul Raheem vs State Of Kerala on 3 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 13TH VAISAKHA, 1946
BAIL APPL. NO. 3538 OF 2024
CRIME NO.217/2024 OF AIROOR POLICE STATION, Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.04.2024 IN CRMP NO.2704 OF
2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,VARKALA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 & 7:
1 ABDUL RAHEEM
AGED 25 YEARS
S/O. VEERANKUTTY, CHULLEELA VALAPPIL VEEDU,
KOLLANNUR ERAVAKKADU, KAPOOR VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM
VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101
2 KHALID
AGED 27 YEARS
S/O ABOOBACKER, CHENDI KILIYAN PARAMBU HOUSE,
KARUVA VILLAGE VENGADU FROM MULLAPPALLI VEEDU,
KARUVA VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 679321
BY ADVS.
M.G.SREEJITH
VIDYAJITH M.
BINCY JOSE
ROJIN DEVASSY
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, PIN - 682031
2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
AYIROOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 689611
SRI.SANIL P.RAJ -PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.3538/2024
..2..
P.G.AJITHKUMAR, J
=========================
Bail.Appl.No.3538 of 2024
==========================
Dated this the 3rd day of May, 2024
ORDER
This is an application for bail filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. The petitioners are accused nos.6 and 7 in Crime
No.217 of 2024 of Airoor Police Station. They allegedly have
committed an offence punishable under Section 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners along
with other accused gave assurance to the defacto complainant
on behalf of Aspire Company that, if he deposits money, he will
get increased rate of interest. Believing that assurance the
defacto complainant transferred several sums to the said
company, but he did not receive back the amount deposited or
any other interest. Portions of the deposited amount were
received by the petitioners as well. Thus the petitioners along
..3..
with other accused had cheated the defacto complainant.
5. The petitioners would contend that they did not involve
in the alleged crime and without any material or evidence,
they have been implicated in the crime. They are innocent. The
investigation in the matter has been progressed considerably
and there is no reason or justification for their further
detention.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that
considering the seriousness of the offence and the possibility
of interfering with the investigation by the petitioners in the
event of their release on bail, this petition deserves only to be
dismissed.
7. The petitioners were arrested on 03.04.2024. The
prosecution obtained enough time to collect materials in order
to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioners.
Although, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners do not have any involvement in the affairs
of Aspire Company, I do not propose to consider the said
contentions on merits since the investigation into the matter, is
underway.
8. The petitioners have been in custody since 03.04.2024
..4..
and the investigation has progressed to a considerable extent.
Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted bail
subject to conditions.
In the result, the bail application is allowed and the
petitioners are granted bail on their executing bonds for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent
sureties each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the
learned Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:
(i) They shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or
tamper with evidence;
(ii) They shall appear before the investigating officer as
and when called for; and
(iii) During the bail period, they shall not get involved in
any offence.
In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution
shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before
the jurisdictional court.
Sd/-
P.G.AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
ACR
