High CourtsSingle Bench

Mambadan Abbas vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 8 December 2022 · Citation: (2022) 12 KL CK 0095

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bechu Kurian Thomas, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 328, 354, 354A(1)(i), 420, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 9719 Of 2022
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

14 paragraphs · 414 words

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J

1.

This is an application seeking regular bail filed under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2.

Petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.601/2022 of Pandikkad Police Station, Malappuram, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 328, 354, 354A(1)(i) and 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3.

According to the prosecution, the accused portraying himself to be a person of divine powers had induced the defacto complainant and her family to attend his divine centre and after misrepresenting to them, cheated the defacto complainant of Rs.18,00,000/- and also on 28.07.2022 attempted to misbehave with the defacto complainant after sedating her and also obtained signatures on blank stamp papers and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4.

Sri.Samsudin Panolan, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution allegations are false and the incident as alleged had not occurred. It was further submitted that the attempt of the defacto complainant is to obtain financial benefits out of the allegations and that considering the period of detention already undergone from 16.11.2022, further detention ought not to be permitted.

5.

Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail and contended that the allegations are serious and that the investigation is still continuing and hence the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions. Even though the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, considering the period of detention already undergone, I am of the view that petitioner can be released on bail.

7.

Accordingly, I allow this application on the following conditions :-

(a) Petitioner shall be released on bail on him 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 having jurisdiction.

(b) Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

(c) Petitioner shall not intimidate or attempt to influence the witnesses; nor shall he tamper with the evidence or contact the defacto complainant or her family members.

(d) Petitioner shall not commit any similar offences while he is on bail.

(e) Petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Court having jurisdiction.

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, notwithstanding the bail having been granted by this Court.