Possession and Part Performance: Stamp Duty Compliance Is Non-Negotiable, Says Delhi High Court Calcutta High Court Declares Disciplinary Action as ‘Shockingly Disproportionate’, Orders Reduction in Rank for Petitioner No Profits, No Deduction — Section 33AC Must Precede 80-I Calculation in Shipping Tax Disputes: Bombay High Court Equity and Merit Must Coexist: Kerala High Court Rules on Regularisation of Temporary Forest Department Employees Lawyers Have No Right to Strike: Madras High Court in Contempt Case Encroachment is like committing a 'dacoity' against public resources: Delhi High Court. High Court Rejects Plea of Kindergarten School Against ESI Contribution Assessment Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Citing 'Humanitarian Consideration' After Accused Marries Victim Procedural Delays Do Not Justify Condonation of Delay," Rules Delhi Consumer Commission in National Insurance Case Elements of Section 300 IPC Are Not Made Out: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Murder Conviction in 1987 Beating Case Registrar Cannot Be a Judge of His Own Cause: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Amendments MP High Court Upholds Prosecution for Forged Patta: 'Accountability in Public Office is Non-Negotiable Approval Must Be Granted for Altruistic Kidney Donations," Rules Madras High Court Grave Illegality in Appellate Remand: High Court of Rajasthan Orders Reassessment on Merits Commissioner Lacked Authority for Retrospective Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Educational Trusts' Registrations Intent is Crucial in Violent Crimes: Single Blow with Axe Does Not Imply Attempt to Murder," Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

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

Similar News