Disposed

Nishad v.Muhammed v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Sept 2019Bail Appl./4497/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed by an accused charged with cheating and forgery in an examination malpractice case, the Kerala High Court directed the petitioner to surrender for interrogation within 15 days rather than granting bail immediately.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to surrender for interrogation by 15.10.2019, and the bail application will be decided by the Magistrate after his production.

Nishad v.Muhammed Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 3RD ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 655/2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT,KOZHIKODE

¶7

CRIME NO.294/2019 OF Mukkom Police Station , Kozhikode

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

NISHAD V.MUHAMMED, AGED 41 YEARS S/O. V. MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, KARASSERY P.O, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI SRI.M.RAGHUKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031

¶13

R1 BY ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.K.SURESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

::2::

¶18

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2019

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶20

B.A.No.4497 Of 2019

¶21

Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2019.

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.2 among the 3 accused in the instant Crime No.294/2019 of Mukkom Police Station, Kozhikode District, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.419, 420, 465, 468 & 34 of the I.P.C, on the basis of the FI statement given by the Regional Deputy Director of Higher Secondary Education, Kozhikode on 13.5.2019 in respect of the alleged incidents happened for the period from 1.3.2019 to 31.3.2019.

¶24

The prosecution case in short is that during the month of March, 2018, while accused Nos.1 to 3 were on official duty as Chief Examiner, Deputy Chief Examiner and Additional Deputy Chief Examiner respectively, for conducting Higher Secondary School Examination March, 2019 at Neeleswaram Government Higher Secondary School within Mukkom Police Station limit, the accused No.2 (petitioner herein) made corrections in the answer sheets of 32 students of First Year relating to their Computer

¶25

::3::

¶26

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2019

¶27

Application examination and he illegally written examinations of two students of First Year and two students of the Second Year at the same school at the instance and consent of accused No.1. Accused No.3 misappropriated his official designation and assisted accused No.2 in his illegal activities and thereby the accused persons have committed the abovesaid offences. It is submitted by the Prosecutor that accused No.1 is the custodian of all answer sheets of the examination. Accused Nos.2 & 3 are her subordinate officers at the relevant time of the examination. By misusing their official positions, accused No.1 in connivance and knowledge of accused Nos.1 & 3, committed the alleged malpractices and mischief by committing cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust. The acts of the accused persons have shaken the credibility and trustworthiness of well established Public examination procedure so far followed by the Higher Secondary Education. During the course of investigation it is further revealed that the accused persons committed offences punishable under Secs.405 & 409 also. Accordingly, a report has already been filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thamarassery and incorporated the above sections of offences on 15.7.2019. The

¶28

::4::

¶29

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2019

¶30

accused persons defrauded the answer sheets of Higher Secondary Examination which they were not expected to do so.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main case of the Prosecution is that accused No.1 is the kingpin of the abovesaid case and that accused No.1 has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court as per order dated 27.8.2019 in B.A.No.4388/2019 filed by that party and that this Court may also grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner (A-2). The learned Prosecutor would point out this Court has held on 27.8.2019 in B.A.No.4388/2019 that the main allegations disclosed against accused No.1 are those in relation to her supervisory duties and the actual overt acts are done by accused Nos.2 & 3, etc. Further that accused No.3 had surrendered before the court below concerned and he was granted bail under Sec.437 of the Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate without remanding him.

¶32

After hearing both sides and on an evaluation of the facts and circumstances, the following orders are passed:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall personally surrender before the Investigating Officer in relation to Crime No.294/2019 of Mukkom Police Station at 9:00 a.m. on any day on or before 15.10.2019 to subject himself for interrogation purposes.

¶34

::5::

¶35

Bail Appl..No.4497 OF 2019

¶36

(ii) The petitioner will fully co-operate with the interrogation process. If the interrogation process is not over on a single day, it will be certainly open to the Investigating Officer to direct the petitioner to appear before him on any subsequent day/s, which the petitioner will have to fully comply.

¶37

(iii) After the interrogation process is over, the Investigating Officer will produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate Court concerned in relation to the instant crime and thereupon the learned Magistrate will consider and pass orders on the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of his production, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Prosecutor and after duly taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case. While so deciding, the learned Magistrate will also consider the specific contention of the petitioner that he is also entitled to bail in view of the fact that accused No.1 has already granted bail by this Court and accused No.3 has also been granted bail under Sec.437 of the Cr.P.C by the jurisdictional court concerned after his surrender without his remand.

¶38

With these observations and directions, the above Bail

¶39

Application will stand disposed of.

¶40

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.

¶41

bkn/-

Nishad v.Muhammed v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nishad v.Muhammed 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unnichandran, Vs K.Mini

Rajendran Vs Dr.v.Venu

Vinod.v. Vs the State of Kerala

John Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh M.R Vs State of Kerala

Karayi Pavithran Vs State of Kerala