Allowed

Alam Mohd.Shah v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Oct 2019Crl.MC/6796/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala modified a bail condition requiring weekly appearance before the Investigating Officer and deleted the restriction on leaving the district, directing the petitioner to furnish his permanent address instead.

What did the court decide?

The condition for weekly appearance was modified to every second Saturday; the restriction on leaving the district was deleted subject to furnishing permanent address.

Alam Mohd.Shah Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 24TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.6796 OF 2019(H)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1614/2019 DATED 30-08-2019 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶7

CRIME NO.770/2019 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION , Ernakulam

¶8

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶9

ALAM MOHD.SHAH AGED 21 YEARS R/O.VILL AND POST BADHARA, BASAIPUR, SHYAMDEUWA, MAHARAJGANJ, UTTAR PRADESH.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.JOHNY SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

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

¶13

SMT V SREEJA-PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

Crl.MC.No.6796 OF 2019(H)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C challenging Annexure-A2 order passed by the Court of Session, Ernakulalm.

¶19

The petitioner is the accused in the case registered as Crime No. 770/2019 of Nedumbassery Police Station under Sections 468 and 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967. The allegation against him is that he came to Kochi in Flight No.AK 039 from Malaysia and during the verification at the emigration department at Nedumbassery Airport, forged Indian seal was found in page Nos.3 and 6 of his passport.

¶20

As per Annexure-A1 order dated 18.07.2019, the Court of Session, Ernakulam granted bail to the petitioner on certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Saturday between 09.00 am and 10.00 am, till final report is filed in the case. Another condition was that he shall not leave Ernakulam District without getting the prior

¶21

¶22

Crl.MC.No.6796 OF 2019(H)

¶23

permission of the Court of Session, Ernakulam.

¶24

The petitioner filed an application as Crl.M.P No.2174/2019 in the court below for modifying/lifting the aforesaid conditions. Learned Sessions Judge found that, just after a period of one month of obtaining bail, he had come up with the petition for relaxation of the conditions of bail and that the petitioner is a native of Uttar Pradesh and if the conditions are relaxed, there is every possibility that he would abscond. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application as per Annexure-A2 order. The aforesaid order is challenged in this petition.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions, has submitted that the investigation of the case has not been completed and more witnesses have to be questioned in the case and that there would be delay in filing the final report in the case after obtaining sanction from the Government.

¶27

The fact that the petitioner is a native of Uttar

¶28

¶29

Crl.MC.No.6796 OF 2019(H)

¶30

Pradesh is not a sufficient ground for not relaxing the conditions of bail granted to him. It is to be noted that the Session Court has already imposed a condition that the sureties of the petitioner shall be persons from Kerala. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution is that he would abscond. Such a contingency can be avoided by imposing appropriate conditions. The prosecution has no case that so far the petitioner has violated any of the conditions of bail.

¶31

In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that the condition regarding appearance of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer can be modified and the condition regarding restriction on leaving Ernakulalm District can be deleted.

¶32

Consequently, the petition is disposed of as follows.

¶33

The condition regarding appearance of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer, contained in Annexure-A1 order, is modified. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every Second Saturday between 9.00 a.m and 10.00 a.m till final report is filed in the case. The condition that, the petitioner shall not leave Ernakulam District without the prior

¶34

¶35

Crl.MC.No.6796 OF 2019(H)

¶36

permission of the Court of Session, Ernakulam, is deleted. The petitioner shall furnish, in the jurisdictional court concerned, his permanent address in Uttar Pradesh to which communications, if any, from the court shall be sent. If any

¶37

change in the address subsequently occurs, he shall intimate that fact also to that court. This order will come into effect only on complying with the conditio n above r egarding the furnishing of the address of the petitioner in the court concerned.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

JUDGE

rpk

Crl.MC.No.6796 OF 2019(H)

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BAIL ORDER OF SESSIONS COURT ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.C.1614/2019 DATED 18.7.2019. ANNEXURE A2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF SESSIONS COURT ERNAKULAM IN CRL.M.P.2174/2019 DATED 30.8.2019.

Alam Mohd.Shah v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alam Mohd.Shah 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

Aravind.B.T., Vs State of Kerala

Abhijith P.K., Vs State of Kerala

Rajesh, Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Suhail.v Vs State of Kerala

Maneesh Vs State of Kerala

The Divisional Chief Executive Vs State of Kerala