Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Feb 2019Bail Appl./317/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a bail application filed by Anil Kumar, the sole accused in a case involving offences under the IPC and Passport Act. The court found the case to be a fit case for dens trial due to allegations of extensive forgery regarding the petitioner's name and address.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioner not granted pre-arrest bail.

Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 18TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

Bail Appl.No.317 of 2019

¶6

CRIME NO. 601/2018 OF KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANIL KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AMAL NIVAS, KAVALAYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.K.RAJENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA (SHO, KADAKKAVOOR POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

¶12

SHRI.C.N PRABHAKARAN, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

Bail Appl..No. 317 of 2019

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The petitioner herein is the sole accused in Crime

¶18

No.601/2018 of Kadakkavoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram district for the offences punishable
under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1976.

¶19

2.The petitioner herein obtained a passport in the year
1997. It was not renewed thereafter. Subsequently, he filed
an application for fresh passport on a contention that there
was mistake in the name and other details. Accordingly, he
filed a fresh application. Alleging that the petitioner got
obtained a passport in the year 1997, based on forged
documents, crime was registered and the petitioner
apprehends arrest in the above case and seeks bail.

¶20

3.It is seen that the petitioner applied for passport
earlier showing his name as “Unni, S/o.Vidyadharan”.
Supporting documents are also seen produced. In all the
documents, he is either known as “Unni” and his father's name
as “Vidyadharan”. However, in the application form, his name

¶21

Bail Appl..No. 317 of 2019

¶22

¶23

is shown as “Vidyadharan Unni, Pattathil Veedu, Market Road,
Attingal”. Now he claims that his name is “Anilkumar, S/o.
Raveendran”. Second passport was obtained by showing this
name. It seems that there is a total change in the name and
address. According to the prosecution, the supporting
documents were also forged.

¶24

Having considered the extensive nature of the documents
produced, I feel that this is not a fit case, in which the benefit
of pre-arrest bail can be granted. Petition fails and is
dismissed.

¶25

 Sd/-
 SUNIL THOMAS
 JUDGE

¶26

Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Abhilash, Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan.K. Vs State of Kerala

Muhamed Ashique Vs State of Kerala

G.Udayakumar Vs State of Kerala

N.Jayakumar @ Jayan Sagara, Vs State of Kerala

Pavith Vs State of Kerala