Kerala High Court Grants More Time To Producers To Appear Before Police
The producers of Malayalam movie ‘Manjummel Boys’ recently moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in alleged cheating case regarding the production of the film.
When the case came up for consideration last week (June 19), the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners had stated that they had received a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. As per the notice, the petitioners were required to appear at the Police Station on June 20.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had passed an interim order granting time till June 27 for the petitioners to appear before the Police Station considering that the Court could not take up the bail application for hearing.
For context, Section 35 of BNSS grants power to a police officer to arrest a person without a warrant and an order from the Magistrate in certain circumstances. As per sub-section (3), the police officer can issue a notice for appearance to a person if a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received against the said person, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence.
The matter is posted on June 26th for consideration.
Background
A crime was registered by the Maradu Police under Sections 120B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code against Shawn Anthony, Soubin Shahir and the latter’s father, who were producers of the movie.
The complaint was filed by a person called Siraj Valiyathara Hameed alleging that the petitioners cum producers made ‘Manjummel Boys’ under the banner of their production company M/S Parava Films LLP. It was alleged that the petitioners cum producers of ‘Manjummel Boys’ failed to repay the profits as per the terms of their investment agreement.
Earlier, the petitioners had moved the High Court for anticipatory bail in another application. However, the application was disposed of noting that the petitioners cannot be arrested in the light of stay of proceedings granted in the Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C.) preferred for quashing the proceedings. The petitioners were given liberty to file fresh bail applications if the Crl.M.C. was decided against them. Later, the Crl.M.C. was dismissed.
Case Title: Shawn Anthony & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case No: Bail Application No. 7487 of 2025
Counsel for the Applicants: Thomas J. Anakkallunkal, Anupa Anna Jose Kandoth, Jayaraman S., Dhanya Sunny, Ann Milka George, Sherin Rachel Santhosh
Counsel for the Respondents: Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Benny Antony Parel, Pramitha Augustine, Afsana Khan, Sreeraj S. Rajaram, Sneha J., Adarsh Padmanabhan, Amal Dileep
