Allowed

M.Kunhammed v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2010Bail Appl./504/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, accused No. 5 in a case involving passport manipulation and cheating, conditionally. The court framed several conditions requiring reporting to the investigating officer and surrendering upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted. Directed to produce bond for Rs.15,000 with two sureties and adhere to reporting conditions.

M.Kunhammed Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 504 of 2010() ------------------------------------CRIME NO.2/2007 OF BEDIYADUKA POLICE STATION, KANNUR. PETITIONER/5TH ACCUSED:

¶4

-----------------------------------------M.KUNHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, PUTHIYANGADI HOUSE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD

¶6

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶7

-----------------------------------------------THE STATE OF KERALA, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BEDIYADUKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶8

SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶9

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

¶11

B.A. No.504 of 2010

¶12

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2010

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 25/02/2010, the following order was passed;

¶15

“This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.2/2007 of Bediyaduka Police Station, Kannur.

¶16

2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 419, 468, 109 and 166 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act.

¶17

3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant approached accused Nos. 1 and 2 to get a passport. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were conducting a Travel Agency. They collected money from the de facto complainant towards expenses and also for police verification. Accused No.3 is a police constable. It is alleged that he also received money for police verification. Later, it is stated that the documents belonging to the de facto complainant were returned to him stating that there was a raid in the Travel Agency and therefore accused Nos.1 and 2 could not make arrangements

¶18

B.A. No.504/2010

¶19

¶20

for getting passport. The de facto complainant later applied for passport. In that application, he stated that he was not a holder of Indian passport and that he had not applied for passport earlier. On verification, the passport authorities found that another passport had already been issued to the de facto complainant. On verification, it was found that the passport was issued in the name of the de facto complainant with slight different address and that this was done at the instance of accused Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged that the petitioner was in charge of the Passport Verification Section at the relevant time. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioner was directly involved in any manipulation or in any fraud. The petitioner is implicated in the case, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, only on the ground that he was in charge of the Passport Verification Section at the relevant time.

¶21

4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the

¶22

B.A. No.504/2010

¶23

¶24

petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9 A.M. on 6^th and 7^th March, 2010.

¶25

5. Post on 15/03/2010.

¶26

6. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No. 2 of 2007 of Bediyaduka Police Station, Kannur.

¶27

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this order before the investigating officer.”

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 25/02/2010.

¶29

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:

¶30

B.A. No.504/2010

¶31

¶32

A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on alternate Sundays, till the final report is filed or until further orders;

¶33

B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required;

¶34

C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence;

¶35

D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;

¶36

E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶37

The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated

¶38

above.

¶39

K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE

¶40

scm

M.Kunhammed v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Kunhammed v. the 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

Justin Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Tomy Vs State of Kerala

Mani Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Tutu Narayanan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Jyothish Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Vs State of Kerala