Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JUSTICE, J
MUHAMMED RISHAD C.V – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused allegedly induced the complainant to invest with false promises. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of the dispute and necessity of custodial interrogation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. legal principles regarding the distinction between breach of contract and cheating. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. parameters for granting anticipatory bail and the necessity of custodial interrogation. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. bail application allowed with conditions. (Para 17) |
ORDER
The application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (in short, 'Code'), for an order of pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioners are the accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.1366/2023 of the Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad, which is registered against them for allegedly committing the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ' IPC ').
3. The crux of the prosecution case is that: the accused persons had induced the defacto complainant to invest Rs.10,00,000/- with them on the assurance of paying 12% profit and subsequently giving them profit in the business and also free medical aid. However, the accused failed to pay any interest, profit and refused to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
