High CourtsSingle Bench

Abdul Muneer vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 21 May 2024 · Citation: (2024) 05 KL CK 0093

HON’BLE JUDGES
C.S.Dias, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 420, 463, 464, 468, 471
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No.3413 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 265 words

C.S.Dias, J

1.

This is the second application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Code’), for an order of pre-arrest bail.

2.

The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.146/2024 of the Feroke Police Station, Kozhikode, registered against the accused (two in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 464, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The essence of the prosecution case is that: the second accused had availed a loan from the Indian Bank, Ramanattukara Branch, Kozhikode for Rs.1,04,31,000/- by producing the forged title deeds of the property belonging to the first accused as a collateral security. It is only when the accused failed to repay the installments, the bank realised that the title deeds of the property created as equitable mortgage is forged. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

4.

Heard; Sri. M.Devesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Seetha.S., the learned Public Prosecutor.

5.

By Annexure-1 order, this Court, after considering the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, and on comprehending the nature, seriousness and gravity of the accusations levelled against the petitioner, and the finding that the Court of Session, Kozhikode by Annexure-2 order, had observed that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary. Consequently, this Court dismissed the petitioner’s earlier application. I do not find any change of circumstances, subsequent to the passing of Annexure-1 order, warranting the consideration of the present application.

Resultantly, the bail application is dismissed.