Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeBail Granted; Petition Allowed

Muhammed Ashiq K v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • C. S. Dias
Judgment Date
2024-04-11
Court Decision / Holding
The bail application is allowed. The petitioner Muhammed Ashiq K is ordered to be released on bail on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer every Saturday 9 a.m.–11 a.m. until final report; (ii) refrain from inducing/threatening witnesses or tampering with evidence; (iii) no further offences; (iv) surrender of passport (or affidavit if none); (v) court may cancel bail on violation of conditions; (vi) bail conditions may be modified/deleted by the court; (vii) recoveries may be pursued even while on bail, as per Sushila Aggarwal v. State. Sd/‑ C.S. Dias, J."
Final Disposition
Bail Granted; Petition Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammed Ashiq K

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
  • Sri C. Shrithwik (Public Prosecutor)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Vijay Sankar V.H.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • C.S. Hrithwik (Public Prosecutor)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 of 2024) by Muhammed Ashiq K, the 9th accused in Crime No. 528/2024, Ernakulam Central Police Station. The prosecution alleges a conspiracy in which the accused impersonated Mumbai Police officers to threaten and coerce the defacto complainant into believing he would be implicated in a money‑laundering case involving Jet Airways, resulting in a transfer of Rs. 29,91,000 to the accused’s bank accounts, under sections 419 and 420 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 03.03.2024. The applicant contends innocence, noting that Annexure‑I remand report shows no specific overt act by him and that only co‑accused (5 and 8) allegedly collected bank details; no amount is shown as transferred to the petitioner. He has been in custody since 04.03.2024, and the investigation is practically complete with recoveries effected, hence detention is unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor argues ongoing investigation and a larger conspiracy, with risks of tampering and witness intimidation if released. The Court, after reviewing the remand report and applicable jurisprudence on bail and presumption of innocence, allows the bail petition, imposing bond and standard conditions designed to prevent tampering and ensure attendance. The order reflects a careful balance between individual liberty and the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sections 419 and 420 read with Section 34 IPCArticle 21 of the Constitution

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
  • Bail is a rule and imprisonment before conviction is an exception
  • Undertrial detention infringing Article 21 is unconstitutional if prolonged without sufficient cause
  • Recoveries during bail are permissible per precedents (e.g., Sushila Aggarwal)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends total innocence and argues that the remand report does not attribute any overt act to him; none of his bank accounts show receipt of funds; there is no direct link establishing his involvement in the alleged large‑scale conspiracy. He has already spent substantial time in custody (since 04.03.2024) and the investigation is said to be practically complete with recoveries effected, so continued detention would be unnecessary and punitive without conviction. Citing Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the petitioner invokes the presumption of innocence and the general principle that bail is the rule, not the exception, demanding release under reasonable conditions.

Contentions of Respondents

The State contends that the investigation is ongoing and that there exists a larger conspiracy involving impersonation of police officers and substantial monetary loss to the complainant (Rs. 29,91,000). It argues that bail at this stage could enable tampering with evidence and intimidating witnesses, undermining the investigation. The prosecution relies on the need to maintain the integrity of the case and to ensure that the accused do not evade or influence proceedings during the crucial investigative phase.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI(2012) 1 SCC 40PositiveCited for the principle that presumption of innocence applies and imprisonment before conviction is punitive; bail should not be denied solely on prior conduct.
Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.(2018) 3 SCC 22PositiveCited for the rule that grant of bail is the general norm and detention is the exception, to be weighed against case facts.
State of Kerala v. Raneef(2011) 1 SCC 784PositiveCited to emphasize constitutional protection under Article 21 against indefinite detention and delay.
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another(2020) (1) KHC 663PositiveCited to justify allowing certain bail recoveries and conditions while on bail.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Muhammed Ashiq K v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946** **BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.528/2024 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CMP NO.3735 OF 2024 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/S:** **MUHAMMED ASHIQ K AGED 29 YEARS S/O RASHEED, KALLOOTHIPARAMBU HOUSE, FAROK CHANDA, FEROK PO, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673631** **BY ADV VIJAY SANKAR V.H.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031** **SR.PP.SRI.C.SHRITHWIK** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the 9[th] accused in Crime No.528/2024 of the Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam, registered against the accused (thirteen in number) for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC'). The petitioner was arrested on 03.03.2024. 2. The essence of the prosecution case is that: the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, to cheat the defacto complainant and make unlawful gain, impersonated themselves as Policemen from the Mumbai Police and threatened the defacto complainant that they would get him implicated in a money laundering case of Jet Airways and accordingly made him to transfer an amount of Rs.29,91,000/- to the bank accounts of the accused. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.Vijay Sankar V.H., the learned counsel BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024 3 appearing for the petitioner and Sri.C.S.Hrithwik, the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. A reading of Annexure-I remand report would substantiate that there is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioner. The only allegation is that the accused 5 and 8 had collected the bank account details of the accused 6, 7 and 9. Yet, no amount was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner. Therefore, the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC will not be attracted against the petitioner. In any given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.03.2024, the investigation in the case, so far as the petitioner is concerned, is practically complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024 4 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. He submitted that the investigation is in progress. He also stated that there is a larger conspiracy involved in the case because the accused have impersonated themselves as Policemen and have cheated the defacto complainant by collecting a substantial amount of Rs. 29,91,000/-. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is every likelihood of him tampering with the evidence and intimidating the witnesses. Hence, the application may be dismissed. 6. On a perusal of Annexure-I remand report, it can be seen that the only overt act alleged against the petitioner is that the accused 5 and 8 had collected the bank account details of the petitioner. Annexure-I remand report does not show that any amount was transferred to the bank account of the petitioner. The fact remains that the BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024 5 petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.03.2024. 7. In **Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,** [2012 1 SCC 40], the Honourable Supreme Court has categorically held that the fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence until a person is found guilty. Any imprisonment prior to conviction is to be considered as punitive and it would be improper on the part of the Court to refuse bail solely on the ground of former conduct. 8. In **Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,** [(2018) 3 SCC 22] the Honourable Supreme Court observed that grant of bail is a rule and putting a person in jail is an exception. Even though the grant of bail is entirely the discretion of the court, it has to be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case and the discretion has to be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner. 9. In **State of Kerala v. Raneef,** [(2011) 1 SCC 784], BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024 6 the Honourable Supreme Court has declared that undertrial prisoners detained in jail for indefinite periods, without any sufficient reason or due to the delay in concluding the trial, will tantamount to infringement of their right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 10. On a consideration of the facts, the rival submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially on considering the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 03.03.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected, I am of the view that the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, I am inclined to allow the bail application. In the result, the application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail on him executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024 7 solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the court having jurisdiction, which shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m till the final report is laid. He shall also appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or procure to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while he is on bail; (iv) The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court below at the time of execution of the bond. If he has no passport, he shall file an affidavit to the effect before the court below on the date of execution of the BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024 8 bond; (v) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. (vi) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. (vii) Needless to mention, it would be well within the powers of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter and, if necessary, to effect recoveries on the information, if any, given by the petitioner even while the petitioner is on bail as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. sd/- **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** rkc/11.04.24 BAIL APPL. NO. 2910 OF 2024 9 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2910/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure -I** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT IN CRIME NO.528/2024 OF ERNAKULAM CENTRAL POLICE STATION** **Annexure -II** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2024 IN CRL. M.P. NO. 3735/2024 OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM**