Ahmed Kabeer PP vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias C.P.J

BA No. 6258 of 2023

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.600 of 2023 of Bekal police station, Kasargode District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this petition.

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant, while working in Gulf countries, had entrusted the accused, who is none other than his brother's son, a cheque book, to facilitate transactions for meeting homely needs. Misusing the cheques and forging signatures, the accused withdrew a total of Rs.20,36,390/- from the main branch of Pallikkara Service Co-op bank from 17/7/2020 to 13/4/2023 and thereby committed the above offence.

BA Nos. 7956 of 2023

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.1311 of 2023 of Hosdurg police station, Kasargode District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this petition.

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant and accused are cousins. She owned certain property including a building where the Ajanur Urban Co-op Bank is housed. She entrusted the accused to deal with the management of her property and to prosecute eviction proceedings taken against the tenant in the building. During the period from 2017 to 20.07.2023, the accused obtained two blank cheques in the account of the defacto complainant, from her mother making her believe that some amount would be required to meet litigation expenses and for other purposes. Having obtained blank cheques, the accused by forging the signature of the account holder withdrew Rs.4,48,000/- and thereby committed the above offence.

BA Nos. 7962 of 2023

Apprehending arrest in Crime No.1312 of 2023 of Hosdurg police station, Kasargode District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has filed this petition.

The prosecution allegation is that the defacto complainant being the paternal uncle used to engage the accused person to operate transactions in his account in the Bank of Baroda. Misusing the trust, the accused had transferred Rs.14,58,000/- from the bank account of the defacto complainant to the personal account of the accused from 3/2/2018 to 14/6/2018. The accused by changing the phone number linked to the account, also transferred money through Google Pay from 9/7/2021 onwards, and thereby committed the above offence.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defacto complainant and the accused were close relatives and the petitioner had entrusted to take care of all his requirements and handed over the cheques and had also authorised him to withdraw the amount from his account. Learned counsel argues that the factum of entrustment and that the amount was withdrawn are not in dispute. The said amount was withdrawn and transferred to the second wife and daughter of the defacto complainant who were living in Bombay and that too to their account. It is also the argument the period of the alleged misappropriation would show that the very case set up by the defacto complainant is false and on trust, the petitioner had done all these things for the defacto complainant and now when the secret marriage of the defacto complainant was known to everyone, as a retaliatory measure the defacto complainant has filed this complaint.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submitted that there is an allegation of forgery as the signature was forged in both the cheques and also in the application requesting for the cheque books and a proper investigation is required into those aspects including a custodial interrogation.

The defacto complainant who impleaded also opposed the bail application submitted that the petitioner had won the trust of the defacto complainant and misused the cheques given and also obtained new chequebooks by forging his signatures and siphoning huge amounts. He also submits that it is his specific case that the phone numbers of the customer, was changed and the internet banking facility was installed in the petitioner's phone and through that, by RTGS the money was transferred and misappropriated. Likewise, in BA No.7956/2023 the chequebooks of the daughter of the defacto complainant were misused and saying that money was needed to pay the fees to the lawyer who was conducting the rent control litigation of the building owned by the daughter, amounts were withdrawn. As the signatures were forged and they have a suspicion about the bank itself, as the bank was the tenant and the petitioner was conducting the litigation for eviction of the bank, the tenant of the daughter of the defacto complainant, a proper investigation is required including a custodial interrogation and as such prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

As stated above, the allegations against the petitioner are of having forged signatures in the cheque, the request for new cheque books given by forging the signature and also of having changed the phone number and installing the facility of internet banking in the phone of the defacto complainant to enable the withdrawal of money. In BA No.6258/2023 the allegation is that during the period from 17/7/2020 to 13/4/2023 Rs.20,36,390/- was withdrawn. In BA No.7956/2023, the complainant of the daughter of the defacto complainant is that Rs.4,48,000/- was withdrawn and in BA No.7692/2023 the allegation by the defacto complainant is that Rs. 14,58,000/- has been withdrawn by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that most of the allegations are on the basis of documents, I am not prepared to accept the same in the light of the allegations of forgery which require a proper investigation and the grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Under such circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Therefore, the following directions are issued:-

In the event the petitioner surrenders before the Investigating Officer in two weeks, he shall be interrogated and thereafter, shall be produced before the Magistrate having jurisdiction on the date of surrender itself. If the petitioner moves for bail, the court below shall, untrammelled by any of the observations in this order, consider the bail applications on merit as expeditiously as possible. If the petitioner does not surrender before the Investigating Officer, as directed above, the Investigating Officer will be free to arrest the petitioner as if no order has been passed in this case. The bail application is disposed of as above.

The bail application is disposed of as above.