Kerala High Court
Muhamed Rafeeq vs Inspector Of Police on 18 February, 2019
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 29TH MAGHA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 688 of 2019
CRIME NO. 3066/2018 OF PERUMBAVOOR POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
MUHAMED RAFEEQ, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O LATE MOIDEEN HAJEE, PAZHANGADI LANE,
THOTTUMUGHAM, ALUVA-683101.
BY ADV. SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
SMT. K. SHEEBA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2019,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No. 688 of 2019 2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicant herein is the accused in Crime No.3066 of 2018 of the Perumbavoor Police Station registered under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC.
3. The applicant is a business man and the de facto complainant and her husband had business transactions with him. A promissory note purported to have been issued by the de facto complainant was used by the applicant to institute a civil suit for realising a sum of Rs.10.42 lakhs. In the course of proceedings, the promissory note was forwarded to the handwriting expert. A report was issued stating that the signature found in the promissory note deferred from that of the de facto complainant. Immediately thereafter, a compliant was lodged before the learned Magistrate alleging offence of cheating and forgery.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would refer to Annexures-A1 ledger account and A2 balance sheet and would contend that the said records would reveal that not less than a sum of Rs.12 lakhs was due to the concern of the applicant herein from the Bail Appl..No. 688 of 2019 3 husband of the de facto complainant. According to the learned counsel, Anenxure-A3 promissory note was executed by the de facto complainant herself by putting a different signature. Later, false contentions are being raised is the argument. It is further submitted that though the suit was instituted by the applicant as early as in the year 2016, complaint was filed only in the month of December, 2018.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and I have gone through the materials made available.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced and taking note of the contentions raised, I do not think that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is required for an effective investigation. He can be granted pre-arrest bail on conditions.
In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if he is proposed to be arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. However, the above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
Bail Appl..No. 688 of 2019 4
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. for a period of two months or till final report is filed whichever is earlier.
ii) He 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/her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
iii) He shall not commit any similar offence while 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.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE IAP //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE