Hilur Muhammed vs State of Kerala and Others

Sunil Thomas, J.—1. Petitioner herein is the accused in four separate crimes.

B.A. No. 5578/2015 is filed by the accused in Crime Nos. 1108/2015 of Valiathura police station (now registered as Crime No. 1041/2015 of Vanchiyoor police station) for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of IPC. B.A. No. 5579/2015 is filed against Crime No. 1358/2015 of Nedumangad police station for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 420, 467, 471, 506(ii) read with section 32 of IPC. B.A. No. 5580/2015 is filed against crime No. 943/2015 of Medical College police station for offences punishable under Section 468, 471, 420 of IPC. B.A. No. 5582/2015 is filed against Crime No. 753/2015 of Pettah police station for offence punishable under sections 420 IPC.

The allegation in B.A. No. 5578/2015 is that the defacto complainant had entrusted his Eritiga car to the first accused on 29/10/2015 for running it on a rental basis on an agreed rent of Rs. 45,000/- per month. The amount was paid by the first accused for few months. Thereafter, neither the monthly rent paid nor the vehicle was returned. In the meanwhile, the defacto complainant found the car in the house of the third accused. On enquiry, he was informed that the driver of the first accused and the 3rd accused, along with the first accused had pledged the car to the 4th accused for a total consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It was further found that the documents in relation to the vehicle were forged and the vehicle was pledged. Hence, crime was registered.

Allegation in B.A. No. 5579/2015 is that the accused had offered to sell one Mercedes Benz car with registration No. KL-02 AK999 to the defacto complainant therein, for an agreed sum of Rupees Twenty Lakhs. The accused introduced himself as one A.R. Zacharia. After inspection of the car, the defacto complainant being satisfied with, the car was entrusted with the vehicle-ID card copy of the accused and the RC book of the vehicle were also handed over. He had also promised to close the existing loan with HDFC within a month. Since there there was no action from the side of the accused, the defacto complainant questioned him. In the meanwhile, it was revealed to the defacto complainant that the accused was not Zacharia, but was infact one Hidur Mohammed. When questioned by defacto complainant, the accused allegedly threatened the defacto complainant, on 5/5/2015. On that day, the car was returned. Towards the return of money already paid, a cheque for a sum of Rs. 20,05,000/- was given to the defacto complainant. The cheque on presentation was returned dishonored. Hence, the complaint was filed.

Allegation in B.A. No. 5580/2015 is that the defacto complainant Saritha, the wife of one Sujith Krishna, had agreed to purchase the above mentioned Benz car from the accused herein for a sum of Rupees Twenty Lakhs. The amount was paid. Thereafter, since the dispute arose for non payment of the money paid in advance, the complaint was lodged by the wife on 15/7/2015.

Allegation in B.A. No. 5582/2015 is that the same car which was subject matter of Crime No. 943/2015 was offered to be sold to the defacto complainant in the present crime. A sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was received. Since the accused did not have another vehicle to travel Ford Figo car of defacto complainant was entrusted to accused. It was agreed that the vehicle would be transferred in favour of the defacto complainant within five days. Since it was not done and the accused was not available over the telephone, the defacto complainant started enquiry. On 26/6/2015 he had gone to a Mosque along with his friend and parked the vehicle outside the Mosque. When he returned, his friend informed that one person had reached there and claimed that he was the owner of the vehicle. On coming to know that the defacto complainant was cheated by the accused, a complaint was laid and the crime was registered.

The defacto complainant in Crime No. 943/2015 filed an application to get herself impleaded. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto complainant in Crime No. 943/2015 and the learned public prosecutor.

The defacto complainant in Crime No. 943/2015 opposed the application for bail contending that the accused had been roaming around, impersonating himself with two expensive vehicles which alone he possessed, cheating several persons.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the husband of the above defacto complainant had an axe to grind since due to certain dispute between himself and the husband of the defacto complainant, a complaint was laid as Crime No. 676/2015 on 18/6/2015 under the various provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and under the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest (Kanduvatti) Act, 2003. The husband of the defacto complaint was arrested and was in jail. As a retaliation, he had filed the subsequent complaints through his stooges to fight against him. However, the petitioner herein, though claims himself to be a person of considerable influence and doing business, there is absolutely nothing on record to show his antecedents, nature of business except two expensive vehicles which he claims to possesses. There is absolutely no material on record to show whether he was the true owner of both the vehicles. It appears that several persons have filed identical complaints against the petitioner herein of having impersonated, siphoned off money from several persons showing these expensive cars.

There is also material on record to show that the petitioner herein had represented himself as one Zacharia to the complainant in Crime No. 1358/2015. In fact, his voter ID card was also handed over. The same person as Hidur Muhammed had offered to sell the same vehicle to another, after it was returned to the defacto complainant in Crime No. 753/2015.

There are also materials to show that all the defacto complainants have identical complaint against the accused. Even though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner herein is that the above four cases were instituted at the instance of the wife of the Sujith Krisha and three others, there is absolutely no record to show that Sujith Krishna is linked with the defacto complainants in Crime Nos. 1041/2015, 1358/2015 and Crime No. 753/2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the additional documents which were pressed into service as Annexures A12 and A15, contended that after her husband was released from the jail, a complaint was filed against him as Crime No. 897/2015 of Museum police station. After the investigation, the above complaint was referred by the police. The reply of the petitioner herein is that in the light of the various crimes registered against him, he could not substantiate his case and establish the allegations.

A perusal of the entire records in all the four cases indicate that there are reasons to doubt the complicity of the accused in various crimes of identical nature. The depth of the crime, persons involved, the modus operandi and whether the petitioner herein is involved in other similar cases are matters to be brought on record. Granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein may hamper the investigation and I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Bail applications are consequently dismissed.