Kerala High Court
Abdul Kareem P vs State Of Kerala on 20 June, 2025
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
2025:KER:44432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1947
BAIL APPL. NO. 6727 OF 2025
CRIME NO.310/2024 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION, Malappuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 17.05.2025 IN CRL.MC
NO.370 OF 2025 OF DISTRICT COURT& SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
ABDUL KAREEM P
AGED 47 YEARS
POOZHITHARA HOUSE, ANANTHAVOOR PO, ANANTHAVOOR,
MALAPPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 676301.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SADIQALI. M
SMT.PRAGEENA A.P.
SHRI.MUHAMMAD SABIK
SHRI.MOHAMED SHAFI M.
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER MANKADA
POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
BAIL APPL. NO. 6727 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:44432
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
...............................................
B.A.No.6727 of 2025
...............................................
Dated this the 20th day of June, 2025
ORDER
This bail application is filed under section 482 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS').
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.310/2024 of
Mankada Police Station, Malappuram, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'IPC'), and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment)
Act, 2008 (for short 'IT Act').
3. According to the prosecution, the accused
impersonated the defacto complainant in the name of a share market
trading company called Kotak Securities, claiming to be its Director,
with an intent to defraud the defacto complainant, and also assured the
complainant of high profits through trading and fraudulently collected
Rs.1,46,15,000/- through bank transfers, and thereafter, neither paid
any profits nor returned the money to the defacto complainant and
thereby cheating the defacto complainant and committed the offences
alleged.
BAIL APPL. NO. 6727 OF 2025
2025:KER:44432
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner has been falsely arrayed as an accused and has no
involvement in the alleged crime.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
7. Admittedly, an amount of Rs.2,508/- out of the total
amount of Rs.1,46,15,000/- cheated from the defacto complainant
came into the account of the petitioner. Though the defacto
complainant has been cheated since the petitioner's account was
credited only with a meagre amount and remaining amount has been
utilized by the other accused. I am of the view that custodial
interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary.
8. In Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT
of Delhi) and Another, [2020 (5) SCC 1], it was held that while
considering whether to grant anticipatory bail or not, Courts ought to
be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of
the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the
case. Grant of anticipatory bail is a matter of discretion and the kind of
conditions to be imposed or not to be imposed are all dependent on
BAIL APPL. NO. 6727 OF 2025
2025:KER:44432
facts of each case, and subject to the discretion of the court.
9. In Ashok Kumar v. State of Union Territory
Chandigarh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 274] , it has been held that a mere
assertion on the part of the State while opposing the plea for
anticipatory bail that custodial interrogation is required would not be
sufficient and that the State would have to show or indicate more than
prima facie case as to why custodial investigation of the accused is
required for the purpose of investigation. In the instant case, the State
has not been able to convince this Court that custodial interrogation is
necessary.
10. On a consideration of the circumstances arising in
the case, this Court is of the view that though the allegations are
serious in nature, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not
required. Further, having regard to the nature of the offence and the
severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that petitioner is
entitled to be released on pre-arrest bail.
11. Accordingly, this application is allowed on the
following conditions:
(a) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on
01.07.2025 and shall subject himself to interrogation.
(b) If after interrogation, the Investigating Officer proposes
to arrest the petitioner, then, he shall be released on bail on
him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand
BAIL APPL. NO. 6727 OF 2025
2025:KER:44432
only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum before
the Investigating Officer.
(c) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as
and when required and shall also co-operate with the
investigation.
(d) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the
witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
(e) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is
on bail.
In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the
jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for
cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the
law, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
JUDGE
mea
BAIL APPL. NO. 6727 OF 2025
2025:KER:44432
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 6727/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.310/2024 OF MANKADA POLICE STATION,
MALAPPURAM DIST.
