Muhammed Saleem v. The State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2015/16TH ASHADHA, 1937 Bail Appl..No. 3592 of 2015 ------------------------------- CRIME NO. 350/2014 OF ANGAMALI POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ........
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------- MUHAMMED SALEEM, S/O ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 34 YEARS, PADINJARE KUTTIKKATTUTHARA HOUSE, MATTUPURAM, MANNAM, NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031.
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683572.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.S.SREEJITH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
mbr/
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.
---------------------- B.A. No.3592 of 2015 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July 2015
O R D E R
Petition filed under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner is accused in Crime No.350 of 2014 on Angamaly Police station registered for the offences under Secs.323, 324, 307, 341, 420, 417 and 406 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with the coaccused made false representations that they would get employment for the victims and others abroad ad collected huge amounts from them and did not get them job as promised.
3. Heard both sides.
4. The amount involved in the case is 11⁄2 crores. The criminal law was set in motion by the petitioner himself. He lodged a complaint against the coaccused alleging that they cheated him. But the investigation revealed that he is also involved in it.
5. I have perused the Case Diary. In the
B.A. No.3592 of 2015 2 complaint itself, it is admitted that huge amount was deposited in his account by the victims. Going by his version in the complaint even after he realised that the other accused cheated him, he was involved in the incident. He took active part in collecting the amounts from the victims and he continued to make false promises to the victims. This happened again and again. A perusal of the complaint itself indicates that his allegation that he is a victim of cheating by the co-accused may not be true. The materials collected by the Police indicate his involvement in the commission of the offences. Granting him anticipatory bail will adversely affect the investigation. So I am not inclined to grant his prayer. In the result, the bail application is dismissed. K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE NS