Kerala High Court
Anil Abdul Azeez vs State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2020
Author: Sunil Thomas
Bench: Sunil Thomas
BA No.8978/2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 25TH MAGHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.8978 OF 2019
CRIME NO.815/2018 OF Nadakkavu Police Station , Kozhikode
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
ANIL ABDUL AZEEZ,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL AZEEZ, R/O SHEEBA MANZIL, MANCHADIMOODU,
CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-
695304.
BY ADV. SRI.M.ZIYAD
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3 DR.K.MOIDU,
NATIONAL HOSPITAL, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE-
673001.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP
R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR
R3 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN KRISHNA DHAN
R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SMT.MAYA M.N
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-
2020, THE COURT ON 14-02-2020 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BA No.8978/2019 2
O R D E R
Dated this the 14th day of February 2020 The accused in Crime No.815/2018 of Nadakkavu Police station for offences punishable under section 420 IPC apprehending arrest seeks bail.
2. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has filed a false complaint alleging that the petitioner herein had received a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs Quatar Riyal from the 3rd respondent and his relatives in Qatar on an undertaking that the petitioner would start a Diagnostic Centre in Qatar. An agreement was entered into between the parties. Alleging that the petitioner had committed breach of the contract and thereby cheated the third respondent, complaint was laid. Crime was registered and investigation is progressing.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the third respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the records.
4. The contention of the petitioner herein is that he is a business man settled in Qatar for the last more than 30 years. He got acquainted with the third respondent in August 2018, who introduced himself as the Chairman of National Hospital, Kozhikode. Later, the petitioner was informed that the third respondent was in financial difficulties due to a dispute with his Arab Sponsor. BA No.8978/2019 3 He sought intervention of the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the petitioner intervened and tried to settle it. Thereafter, the third respondent and his relatives started pressurizing the petitioner herein claiming that he is bound to pay the amount to him at the instance of the Arab sponsor. Since this increased, he moved this court seeking police protection by filing W.P.(C) No.35794/2018. It was allowed and protection was granted by the Division Bench of this court by order dated 7/3/2019.
5. Refuting the above allegation, the stand taken by the third respondent was that the petitioner had offered to start a diagnostic centre for the third respondent in Qatar. A sum of Rs.8 Lakhs Qatar Riyal was paid. An agreement was also entered into on 12/9/2018, wherein the petitioner had acknowledged the receipt of the money and undertook to re-pay the money. Thereafter, petitioner failed to perform his part of the agreement. He denied the various allegations in the bail application.
6. It is seen from the records that before the Division Bench of this Court, the third respondent had produced a copy of the said agreement marked as Ext.R5(a). It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein was aware of the above document. Though he has referred to that document in the bail application, strangely the execution of the above document is not denied. Even though it was contended by the petitioner at the time of hearing that the above document was a forged document, no such contention is set up in the bail application. Normal response of any person, who was a genuine case that the document was forged, would be to deny the execution of that BA No.8978/2019 4 document at the first available opportunity. Case diary discloses that the complainant and the persons involved in the transaction have been questioned and their statements recorded. The witnesses to the payment of sum of 8 Lakhs Qatar Riyal and the execution of the agreement have also been questioned and their statements supporting the third respondent have been recorded. The original agreement has been seized by the police. Investigation is progressing.
7. Considering the serious nature of the allegation and the nature of the materials gathered by the investigating agency till now, I feel that this is not a fit case for granting the benefit of pre arrest bail, which, if granted will jeoparadise the smooth conduct of the investigation.
The bail application fails and is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
dpk JUDGE