Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9275/2019 of P.T.HAIDAR Vs STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2019
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941 Bail Appl..No.9275 OF 2019 CRIME NO.986/2019 OF Tirur Police Station , Malappuram PETITIONER/S: 1 P.T.HAIDAR AGED 55 YEARS S/O. P.T.MUHAMMED, PALLIPATTUTHUMBAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 10TH POUSHA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.9275 OF 2019
CRIME NO.986/2019 OF Tirur Police Station , Malappuram PETITIONER/S:
1P.T.HAIDARAGED 55 YEARSS/O. P.T.MUHAMMED, PALLIPATTUTHUMBAN HOUSE, PARAPOOTHATUM, CHERIYAMUNDAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK
2C.K.HAIDAR,AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, CHOLAKUDUNDIL HOUSE, PARAPOOTHATUM, CHERIYAMUNDAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK
3HIDAYATHULA,AGED 41 YEARSS/O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, CHOLAKUDUNDIL HOUSE, PARAPOOTHATUM, CHERIYAMUNDAM P.O., TIRUR TALUK
BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.RAFIQSRI.V.C.SARATHSRI.M.REVIKRISHNANSRI.VIPIN NARAYAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031
*2ABDUL KHADERAGED 50 YEARS, S/O. AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, YARATHINGAL (H), PARAPOOTHADAM P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM
*ADDL R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATAED 31.12.2019 IN CRL.MA 2/19 IN B.A NO.9275/19
R2 BY ADV. L.RAJESH NARAYAN
SMT.SREEJA.V., PP
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Dated this the 31st day of December 2019
The petitioners are accused in Crime No.986 of 2019 of Tirur Police Station for having allegedly committed offencespunishable under Section 420, 464, 465, 468 and 471 read withSection 34 of the IPC. The prosecution case as against thepetitioners in brief is that they had with dishonest intention tocheat the de facto complainant and others of the MahalCommittee, forged certain documents relating to the MahalCommittee with intend to cause damage injury to the publicand the members of the Committee. It is pointed out that thereis a drift between the certain members of the MahalCommittee. There is a civil dispute pending and rival factionsare contesting against each other. The de facto complainantallegedly belongs to the rival party. His specific allegation isthat the petitioners did not have authority and power to issue certain certificates, issued on behalf of the Mahal Committee.And hence, it results in forgery. It is for the trial court todecide whether the offence of forgery or whether thepetitioners had authority to issue such certificates at thatpoint in time based on the evidence that may be adduced.There are no other criminal antecedents against thepetitioners which would prevent them from being released onbail. Hence I find that they are entitled to a pre-arrest bail.The de facto complainant got himself impleaded and thecounsel appearing for the de facto complainant was also heard.in the result, the petition is allowed and in the event ofthe petitioner is being arrested they shall be released on bailon execution of bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousandonly) with two solvent sureties each for like amount for thesatisfaction of the investigating officer. They shall notinterfere with the affairs of the mosque without permission ofthe forum before which the matters are pending. They shall also not intimidate or influence witnesses. They shall appearbefore the investigating officer as and when called for andcooperate with the investigation.
JS
Sd/-
ASHOK MENON
JUDGE