Kerala High Court
Ismayil Mubarak vs State Of Kerala on 1 November, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7401 of 2018
CRIME NO. 600/2018 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
ISMAYIL MUBARAK,
AGED 70, S/O MOIDU C.H., THAYIF,
PANNIANNORE PO, PARAL VIA, PANOOR- 670 671.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.KHALID
SRI.T.P.SAJID
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.
2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.
SRI C N PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2018,
ALONG WITH B.A. NOS.7403 & 7405 OF 2018 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.As.7401,7403 & 7405/2018 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7403 of 2018
CRIME NO. 596/2018 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
ISMAYIL MUBARAK,
AGED 70, S/O MOIDU C.H., THAYIL,
PANNIANNORE P.O., PARAL VIA., PANOOR- 670 671.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.KHALID
SRI.T.P.SAJID
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.
SRI C N PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2018,
ALONG WITH B.A. NO.7401 & 7405 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.As.7401,7403 & 7405/2018 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1940
Bail Appl..No. 7405 of 2018
CRIME NO. 646/2018 OF PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT
PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED:
ISMAIYIL MUBARAK,
AGED 70, S/O MOIDU.C.H, THAYIF,
PANNIANNORE P.O., PARAL VIA,
PANOOR -670 671.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.KHALID
SRI.T.P.SAJID
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
PANOOR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 001.
BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N .PRABHAKARAN
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2018,
ALONG WITH B.A. NOS.7401 & 7403 OF 2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.As.7401,7403 & 7405/2018 4
ORDER
These applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicant herein is the 2nd accused in Crime No. 600 of 2018, 596 of 2018 and 646 of 2018 of the Panoor Police Station. All these crimes are registered under Sections 406 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 1 st accused in the aforesaid Crimes is the son of the applicant herein.
3. The de facto complainant is a business man and he was having acquaintance with the 1 st accused. He was allegedly persuaded by the 1st accused to invest in a Company by name 'Al Amber Real Estate and Trading' registered at Qatar and was assured whopping profits on his investment. Placing implicit reliance on the assertions of the 1st accused, the de facto complainant is alleged to have invested 2,35,000 QAR in the company. However, when the profits did not flow as assured, the 1 st accused was asked to return B.As.7401,7403 & 7405/2018 5 the money. Towards settlement, cheques were issued by the 1 st accused on an account maintained by him with the Qatar National Bank. However, none of them was honoured by the bank, when the same was presented for collection. Immediately thereafter, the 1 st accused is alleged to have left the country and came back to India. Insofar as the applicant herein is concerned, it is alleged that he had taken part in the discussions held between the parties.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant would contend that the allegations are baseless. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the entire transactions that the de facto complainant had was with the 1 st accused. This fact is evident from the initial complaint filed before the Indian Embassy, Qatar. The applicant herein was arrested in the aforesaid Crimes on 26.10.2018 and he was later remanded. According to the learned counsel, he is innocent and was included in the array of the accused to force the 1 st accused to come forward for a settlement.
5. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.
B.As.7401,7403 & 7405/2018 6
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, and the initial complaint submitted by the de facto complainant before the Indian Embassy, Qatar. The amounts were invested by the de facto complainant for the running of a business in a foreign country. The entire transactions were between the de facto complainant and the 1 st accused. Having regard to the role assigned to the applicant and the stage of investigation, I do not think that further detention in custody of the applicant is required in the instant case.
7. In the result, these applications will stand allowed. The applicant herein shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
1).The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturdays between 9 am and 11 am, for a period of one month or till the final report is filed, whichever is earlier.
2)He shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence.
3). He shall not commit any offence while he is on bail.B.As.7401,7403 & 7405/2018 7
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 DSV/1/11/18 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE