IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3343 of 2010()
1. ABDUL HAMEED, AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. S.I. OF POLICE, PAYYOLI POLICE STATION
For Petitioner :SRI.G.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :09/07/2010
O R D E R
K.HEMA, J
-----------------------
B.A No.3343 OF 2010
--------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of July 2010
ORDER
This petition is for anticipatory bail.
2. The alleged offences are under Sections 406, 420 r/w
120(B) of IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner (A2) and first
accused approached several persons and made them believed by
making false representations that if they were to give money, it
would be invested in a business and huge profit will be raised and
paid to them etc. Thus, they induced several persons pay huge
amounts to the accused. They also issued receipts. But, accused
did not act as promised and the money which was collected from
various persons was also not returned. Thereby, all those persons
were cheated by petitioners in furtherance of common intention.
Several crimes were registered against the accused on complaints
of different persons. This is one such complaint.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is
the second accused and he has not issued any receipts to de facto
complainant and petitioner’s custodial interrogation is not
necessary in this case.
4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public
Prosecutor submitted that 21 cases are already registered against
B.A No.3343 OF 2010 2
petitioner for similar crimes. Several persons are cheated by
petitioner and first accused. Receipts were also issued for having
received money and investigation is in progress and petitioner’s
custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain several facts
relating to the offence. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory
bail.
5. On hearing both sides, I find that the complicity of
petitioner in the offence can be better revealed by custodial
interrogation and it is necessary that he is subjected to custodial
interrogation. Considering the serious nature of allegations made.
I do not think that this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
Petitioner is implicated in several cases instituted by different
persons for having acted in similar manner and cheating the
various persons. Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating
Officer and co-operate with investigation without any delay.
Petition is dismissed.
K.HEMA
JUDGE
vdv