Kerala High Court Muhammed Rafsal vs State Of Kerala on 7 August, 2020 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1942 Bail Appl..No.9020 OF 2019 CRIME NO.736/2019 OF Varappuzha Police Station , Ernakulam PETITIONER/1st ACCUSED: MUHAMMED RAFSAL AGED 26 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, KOKKARANIKKAL HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA P.O., MAROTTICHVAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.) SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL) SHRI.MAHESH BHANU S. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.S.LAKSHMI SANKAR SRI.R.ANIL RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM682 031. 2 ADDL.R2 ANTONY S/O AUGUSTINE, PAZHAMBILLY HOUSE, CHENGOTHUKUNNU BHAGOM, KARINGAMTHURUTH, ALANGAD, PIN683518 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R2 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 4/2/2020 IN CRL.MA NO.1/2020. B.A.No.9020/2019 2 R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.RENJITH.T.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: B.A.No.9020/2019 3 ORDER Dated this the 4th day of August 2020 This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code was heard through Video Conference. 2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.736 of 2019 of Varappuzha Police Station. The above case is registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner along with the remaining accused induced the defacto complainant to part with a total sum of Rs.5,70,200/ promising that he will be provided a part time job visa and an education visa at Italy for the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant paid the amount, but the accused without providing visa or returning the amount paid cheated him. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offences. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. B.A.No.9020/2019 4 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence under Section 420 IPC is made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that there was a settlement between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and a part payment is already made. Annexure2 is the receipt showing the payment of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/. The petitioner will settle the entire issues. 6. Even though Annexure2 is admitted by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant, he submitted that there is a huge balance pending and the petitioner is not repaying the amount. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if this Court is granting bail to the petitioner, stringent conditions may be imposed. 8. After hearing both sides, this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. The admitted case is that the defacto complainant paid certain amount to the accused for getting admission at IMA College, Italy. But, admission was not B.A.No.9020/2019 5 obtained by the defacto complainant. Now part of the amount paid by the defacto complainant is returned. In such situation, whether an offence under Section 420 IPC is made out or not is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. I do not want to make any observation on the merits of the matter. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Bail Application can be allowed on stringent conditions. 9. Moreover, considering the need to follow social distancing norms inside prisons so as to avert the spread of the novel Corona Virus Pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Re: Contagion of COVID19 Virus In Prisons case (Suo Motu Writ Petition(C