Disposed

Shahitha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2016Bail Appl./2961/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that custodial interrogation is necessary for passport recovery. Petitioner must surrender for 7 days, followed by Magistrate consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to surrender for interrogation; bail to be considered by Magistrate after interrogation per the order conditions.

Shahitha Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/16TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

Bail Appl..No. 2961 of 2016

¶6

CRIME NO. 1626/2015 OF PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

SHAHITHA, AGED 49 YEARS, H & C COMPOUND, PALLITHOTTOM KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT VELICHANAGAR, DEPO PURAYIDOM, PALLITHOTTOM, KOLLAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LALIZA T.Y.

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~

B.A No.2961 of 2016

¶18

~~~~~~~~~~~

¶19

Dated this the 6^th June, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner herein seeks pre arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the apprehension of arrest in connection with Crime No.1626 of 2015 of the Kollam Pallithottom Police Station registered under Sections 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 (1) (b) of the Indian Passport Act, 1967.

¶22

The prosecution case is that in 1999, the petitioner herein obtained a passport by using false and forged documents including forged identity cards, and that later when she lost the first passport, she obtained another one by using such false and forged documents. It is also alleged that these two passports were used by her on different occasions to go abroad. The first Passport No.835573 was obtained in November 1999, and the second passport No.1777543 was obtained in 2010. Anyway, on detection of the forgery, crime was registered

¶23

B.A No.2961 of 2016

¶24

¶25

only in October, 2015.

¶26

This application for pre arrest bail is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary as part of investigation, and that if the accused is now released, she will definitely obstruct the proper and effective investigation.

¶27

On hearing both sides, and on a perusal of the materials including the case diary I find that interrogation of the petitioner in custody for the collection of materials including recovery of the passport is absolutely necessary in this case, for which purpose, she will have to surrender before the Investigating Officer. After such interrogation, the request for bail can be considered by the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction. When the necessary things are collected and the questioned passport is also recovered, the learned Magistrate will very well consider whether the detention of the petitioner in custody is necessary for any purpose.

¶28

In the result, this application for bail is disposed

¶29

B.A No.2961 of 2016

¶30

¶31

of as follows:

¶32

a) The petitioner will surrender before

¶33

the investigating officer before 9 am. on any day within seven days from this date for the purpose of interrogation as part of investigation.

¶34

b) After necessary interrogation, the investigating officer will produce the petitioner before the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction by 4 pm. on the date of surrender itself.

¶35

c) If the learned Magistrate is satisfied that the interrogation as part of investigation is over, and that there is no necessity of detention of the petitioner in custody, the petitioner can be released on appropriate conditions.

¶36

d) If it is found otherwise that the petitioner did not in fact co-operate, or that her detention is necessary for a reasonable period for effective investigation, and for collection of the materials which the petitioner did not disclose during investigation, the learned Magistrate can

¶37

B.A No.2961 of 2016

¶38

¶39

remand the petitioner to judicial custody. The learned Magistrate will have to take decision on the said aspect independently and judiciously, without being influenced or carried away by police report. In case of remand, the application for regular bail will have to be considered and decided by the learned Magistrate judiciously on the same day.

P.UBAID JUDGE

/True copy/

P.S to Judge

Shahitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahitha 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

Viswanathan K. Vs the State of Kerala

A. Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Shaji.a. Vs State of Kerala

Jaladharan Vs State of Kerala

Latha Komalan @ Latha Vs State of Kerala

Dileep Kumar Vs State of Kerala