High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-03-15Petition allowed; bail granted to the petitioner.

Mujeeb N. vs State of Kerala & Others

Case / Petition Number:BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2024-03-15
Court Decision / Holding: The bail application is allowed; the petitioner shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties for the like amount, subject to conditions including appearance before the Investigating Officer on Saturdays for a month or until final report, refraining from inducing or tampering with witnesses, not committing any offence while on bail, surrender of passport (or an affidavit if none), providing addresses and contact number, and readiness to cooperate with investigations; the order notes the Court’s power to investigate and effect recoveries during bail in line with Sushila Aggarwal.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; bail granted to the petitioner.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mujeeb N

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
The Station House Officer, Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam district
Suneesh (defacto complainant)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• T.S. Sarath Manu
• Ramachandran M. Kiranlal
• R. Rajesh (Varkala)
• Sameer M Nair
• Jothisha K.A.
• Aashi K.
• Shajan
• Sailakshmi Menon
• Smt. Akhila B.
• Binu R.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sabikh Mohammed V S

Case Synopsis & Summary

This bail application arises from Crime No. 2588/2023 registered at Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam, where the accused, Mujeeb N, is said to have impersonated a person to cheat the defacto complainant by inducing him to like YouTube channels with a promise of earnings, leading to a demand and transfer of Rs 2,00,000 after an initial payment of Rs 300. The offences alleged are under sections 419 and 420 IPC and section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 24 January 2024 and seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC, contending that the allegations are false, he was falsely implicated, and that the dispute with the defacto complainant has been amicably settled with full repayment. The prosecution’s public prosecutor opposed bail but conceded the custody period and that investigation is nearly complete with recovery effected. The defacto complainant’s counsel states the matter has been settled. The High Court, after considering custody since 24.01.2024, the completion of investigation and recovery, and the out-of-court settlement, and noting the sett lement between the parties, allowed the bail application. The order imposes standard bail conditions, including bonding, sureties, regular appearance before the IO, non-tampering with witnesses, surrender of passport if any, and cooperation with investigation, and references a Supreme Court principle permitting police action for recovery even on bail.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 419 IPCSection 420 IPCSection 66(D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (2020 (1) KHC 663)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is totally innocent and falsely implicated. He urged that Sections 419 and 420 IPC do not attract, and pointed to an amicable out-of-court settlement with the defacto complainant, including repayment of the entire amount. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.01.2024 and the investigation is nearly complete with recovery effected; thus further detention is unnecessary and bail should be granted.

Contentions of Respondents

The 3rd respondent/defacto complainant’s counsel submitted that the matter has been amicably settled and the entire amount has been returned. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail but conceded the custody period, completed investigation, and recovery; the settlement was recorded. Ultimately, the court considered these factors and granted bail.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.	2020 (1) KHC 663	Mentioned Only	Cited to justify that police may investigate and effect recoveries while a person is on bail; not a direct binding holding in this decision.

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 Mujeeb N. vs State of Kerala & Others 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** **FRIDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945** **BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024** **CRIME NO.2588/2023 OF Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.02.2024 IN CRMP NO.258 OF 2024 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,KOTTARAKKARA PETITIONER/S:** **MUJEEB N,AGED 48 YEARS S/O MUHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI,NALAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR CHEMPANKAVU EMPLE,VADAKKUMPURAM P.O, EDAYOOR VILLAGE,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676552** **BY ADVS. T.S.SARATH MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR JOTHISHA K.A. AASHI K. SHAJAN SAILAKSHMI MENON SMT.AKHILA B. BINU R.** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031** - **2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691506** - **3 SUNEESH,AGED 24 YEARS, SUDHEESH BHAVAN,VRINDAVAN NAGAR,66, PALLIKKAL P O, MYLOM VILLAGE,KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691566** ## **BY ADV SABIKH MOHAMMED V S** **THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024 2 ## **O R D E R** The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the accused in Crime No.2588/2023 of the Kottarakkara Police Station, Kollam, registered against him for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Secs.419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') and Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner was arrested on 24.01.2024. 2. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused had impersonated himself with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant and induced him to like the you tube channels on the assurance that he could earn the accused rewarded the defacto money. Initially complainant with Rs.300/- after completing three initial tasks. After gaining his confidence, the accused insisted the defacto complainant to transfer an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the bank account. Thereafter, the accused did not pay profit to the defacto complainant. Thus, he has BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024 3 committed the above offences. 3. Heard; Sri.T.S.Sarath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Shinymol V.O., the learned Public Prosecutor and Sri.Sabikh Mohammed, the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent - defacto complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is totally innocent of the accusations leveled against him. He has been falsely implicated in the crime. The offences under Sections 419 and 420 will not stand attracted in the crime. Notwithstanding the contentions raised in the bail application, the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent has been amicably settled out of court. The petitioner has paid the entire money to the 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant. In any given given case, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024 4 24.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. Therefore, the petitioner's further detention is unnecessary. Hence, the application may be allowed. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application. Nonetheless she conceded to the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is complete and recovery has been effected. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent/defacto complainant submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent has been amicably settled and the petitioner has returned the entire amount to the 3[rd] respondent. The said submission is recorded. 7. On a consideration of the facts, the rival BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024 5 submissions made across the Bar and the materials placed on record, especially taking into account the fact that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 24.01.2024, that the investigation in the case is practically complete and recovery has been effected and further the dispute between the petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent has been settled out of court, 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 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 BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024 6 a.m. and 11 a.m for a period of one month or till the final report is laid, whichever is earlier. 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 bond; - (v) The petitioner shall furnish his present address and permanent address, and his mobile phone number to the court below and the Investigating Officer; - (vi) In case of violation of any of the conditions mentioned above, the jurisdictional court shall be BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024 7 empowered to consider the application for cancellation of bail, if any filed, and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law. - (vii) Applications for deletion/modification of the bail conditions shall be moved and entertained by the court below. - (viii) 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 Anr.** [2020 (1) KHC 663]. **==> picture [28 x 14] intentionally omitted <==** rkc/15.03.24 ## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE** BAIL APPL. NO. 1590 OF 2024 8 ## **APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 1590/2024** ## **PETITIONER ANNEXURES** **Annexure A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.2588/2023 OF KOTTARAKKARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT** **Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2024 IN C.M.P NO.176/2024 OF JUDICIAL FIRST - CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT I, KOTTARAKKARA** **Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2024 IN C.M.P NO.258/2023 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, KOTTARAKKARA Annexure A4 THE ORIGINAL COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT DATED 17/02/2024**