Dismissed

Padmanaban v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Aug 2010Bail Appl./3610/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam dismissed an anticipatory bail application filed by a petitioner accused of passport fraud and forgery under the Indian Passport Act and IPC. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for investigation owing to the serious nature of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application dismissed; petitioner bound to surrender and cooperate with investigation.

Padmanaban Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 3610 of 2010() ----------------------------(CRIME NO.631/2010 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION)

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3

¶7

¶8

PADMANABHAN,AGED 59 YEARS,RASAYALAM, K.K.ROAD CHEMBUMUKKU,THRIKKAKARA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.Y.VARGHESEKUTTY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF POLICE, NALLADOM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶13

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ

¶14

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

K.HEMA, J

¶16

B.A No.3610 OF 2010

¶17

Dated this the 17^th day of August 2010

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is for anticipatory bail.

¶20

The alleged offences are under Sections 12, 1(b) of Indian Passport Act and Section 468 and 471 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, de facto complainant handed over his passport to second accused for arranging visa. When second accused went to Dubai, he handed over the passport to third accused. Since de facto complainant did not get the passport returned to him in spite of repeated demands, he applied for a fresh passport. He was informed by the authorities that his old passport was seen renewed already with the photograph of another person who is first accused in this case. Therefore, a complaint was lodged and a crime was registered under the above said sections on the allegation that forgery etc. are committed by accused numbers 1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention.

¶21

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner (A3) is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. De facto complainant has no case in the FIS that he had handed over the passport to petitioner. Petitioner is not even known to de facto complainant. When the case was registered against second accused, the name of third accused is mentioned by him only with

¶22

B.A No.3610 OF 2010

¶23

¶24

a view to wriggle out of the criminal liability. Petitioner is absolutely innocent and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted.

¶25

This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the FIS does not reveal the name of petitioner, but, on investigation, it is revealed that the passport was handed over to petitioner by second accused and that the old passport which was issued in the name of de facto complainant was renewed with the photograph of first accused. Third accused is working as an assistant to a person who arranges passport and is stationed near the passport office. Petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for getting further details about the nature of forgery committed and for an effective investigation. First and second accused are not so far arrested. The crime is registered as early as on 05/03/2010.

¶26

On hearing both sides and on considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that petitioner will be required for custodial interrogation to ascertain the details of the alleged forgery etc. Considering serious nature of alleagtions also, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with investigation.

¶27

This petition is dismissed.

¶28

K.HEMA JUDGE

¶29

vdv

Padmanaban v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmanaban v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabu.S Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Venkatesan @ Venkat Vs Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control

Jitheesh Muttil Vs State of Kerala

Faizal @ Shaiju Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Faizal & Shaiju Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Yaizal @ Shaiju Vs the Sub Ispector of Police