The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of T P Noushad of Chevayoor, a relative of former minister and CPM leader Elamaram Kareem, who is an accused in four cheating cases registered in Kozhikode district.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Thomas P Joseph observed that the matter requires investigation and also directed the agency to look into the allegations.
Opposing the plea, Senior Government Pleader C Rasheed submitted that only a few days were available for the investigation, as the proceedings in the case were earlier stayed by the High Court.
After cases were registered for the offence under Sections 420 (Cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, Noushad had approached the High Court seeking to quash criminal cases of cheating registered in connection with quarry deal.
The Court had initially stayed all the proceedings and later these were dismissed. However, the police did not get enough time to investigate the case.
The Government Pleader also submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential, considering the nature of allegations.
The Government Pleader pointed out that the accused cheated the complainants by introducing himself as a personal staff member and close relative of Elamaram Kareem.
The complainants ran a quarry and Naushad had cheated them by taking over their properties on the promise of giving a share in his crusher company.
It was also agreed that the partnership should be on 50:50 basis.
However, the entire property was registered in the name of Noushad and he did not given the share offered to the complainants.
The Government Pleader submitted that the court had already found that there was prima facie case against Noushad with a Bench dismissing the criminal miscellaneous petition filed by him observing that some offences were evident.
The police also suspect that the accused had forged documents to form the crusher company, the Government Pleader submitted.
The court also directed the police to check the authenticity of the documents.
Counsel for the petitioner Gopalakrishna Kurup submitted that the complaints are identical and in the same handwriting and this reveals a concerted effort to implicate someone in the case.
Gopalakrishna Kurup also submitted that these people had come together under the influence of some people involved in real estate business.