State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Marriage Cannot Be Perpetuated on Paper When Cohabitation Has Ceased for Decades: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Grant Divorce Despite Wife’s Opposition Ownership of Trucks Does Not Mean Windfall Compensation: Supreme Court Slashes Inflated Motor Accident Award in Absence of Documentary Proof Concealment of Mortgage Is Fraud, Not a Technical Omission: Supreme Court Restores Refund Decree, Slams High Court’s Remand State Reorganization Does Not Automatically Convert Cooperative Societies into Multi-State Entities: Supreme Court Rejects Blanket Interpretation of Section 103 Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication

Civil Nature of Allegations Doesn’t Warrant Custodial Interrogation: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail in Co-operative Society Fraud Case

24 December 2024 8:10 PM

By: sayum


High Court emphasizes lack of mens rea and petitioners’ non-involvement during the period of alleged fraudulent deposits. The Kerala High Court has granted pre-arrest bail to Muhammed Haneefa K. and Kumaran P.T., accused in a case of inducement and cheating related to a co-operative society. The judgment delivered by Justice C.S. Dias highlighted the civil nature of the allegations and the absence of mens rea, underscoring that the petitioners were not involved in the society’s affairs during the period the alleged fraud took place.

The case pertains to Crime No. 676/2023 registered at the Sreekrishnapuram Police Station, Palakkad. The petitioners, who became the President and Honorary Secretary of the Thiruvazhiyode Housing Co-operative Society Limited on February 10, 2021, were accused of inducing the de facto complainant to invest ₹72,44,000 in the society with a promise of higher interest returns. However, the deposits, which matured in October 2023, were not returned, leading to charges under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Justice C.S. Dias, while granting bail, observed that the petitioners were not in charge of the society when the deposits were made. “The petitioners were elected to their positions well after the alleged transactions occurred,” noted the court. This timing was crucial in determining that the petitioners could not have had the intent to defraud the complainant.

The court emphasized the petitioners’ lack of mens rea, citing that they had been elected after the deposits were made and had continued paying interest to the complainant. “The society faced financial difficulties, leading to non-repayment of matured amounts, but this does not establish fraudulent intent,” Justice Dias stated.

The court imposed several conditions to ensure the petitioners’ cooperation with the investigation, including surrendering before the investigating officer, executing bonds, and surrendering their passports. Any violation of these conditions could lead to the cancellation of bail.

Justice C.S. Dias remarked, “The allegations made in the FIR are more civil in nature, though that is a matter to be investigated and decided at the time of trial.” He further added, “The petitioners’ custodial interrogation is not necessary, and they have made valid grounds to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 438 of the Code.”

The Kerala High Court’s decision to grant pre-arrest bail highlights the judiciary’s nuanced approach in distinguishing between criminal intent and civil disputes. By recognizing the timing of the petitioners’ involvement and the nature of the allegations, the judgment ensures that the investigation continues without unnecessary custodial interrogation, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: 3rd July 2024

Latest Legal News