Dismissed

Shaji., v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2021Bail Appl./9094/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed anticipatory bail application for accused alleged to have forged driving test certificates. Court held pre-arrest bail inadvisable pending full investigation into repeated fraud affecting public administration and directed surrender within ten days for further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; directed to surrender within ten days for investigation and then be produced before Magistrate.

Shaji., Vs the State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶5

1943

¶6

BAIL APPL. NO. 9094 OF 2021

¶7

CRIME NO.1593 OF 2021 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION,

¶8

KOLLAM.

¶9

PETITIONERS/2ND AND 3RD ACCUSED :

¶10

1 SHAJI., S/O. RAHIM, SHAJI MANZIL, SOUTH MAJINAKKAPPALY PO., KOLLAM 690 519.

¶11

2 AFSAL, S/O. ASHRAF, ASNA MANZIL, POORUVAZHI P.O., KOLLAM 690 520.

¶12

BY ADVS. DEEPU THANKAN UMMUL FIDA LAKSHMI SREEDHAR R.RAJANANDINI MENON

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT & STATE :

¶14

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOORANADU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

SRI M.C.ASHI- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

B.A.No.9094 of 2021

¶19

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶20

-----------------------------------------------------------

¶21

B.A.No.9094 of 2021

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2021

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

This is an application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶25

The offences alleged against the petitioners and the co-accused are punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶26

Allegations against the accused are the following : At 9.45 am on 19-11-2021, at the time of driving test, the first accused produced a certificate in Form III purported to have been issued by the de facto complainant, an AMVI of the Motor Vehicles Department and on verification, the same was found to be a forged one. The forged document was created by downloading the test sheet of the leaner's license and thereafter affixing the signature of AMVI by accused numbers 2 and 3. Making use of such a forged document the first accused appeared for the driving test. Thereby, the accused have committed the aforementioned

B.A.No.9094 of 2021

offences.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

Report of the investigating officer is placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor. The first accused, who has appeared for the driving test produced a certificate in Form III, was arrested and later released on bail. The specific allegations against the petitioners are that they are the owner and the instructor of the driving school and they had forged the document. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that apart from the instance regarding which this Crime was registered; a few other instances of creating forged documents in a similar way are also revealed during the investigation.

¶32

The offence is, no doubt, grave in nature. When official documents are forged and used as genuine, it affects the public administration and the general public at large. Commission of this kind of offence points, also to the lapse on the part of the administration as well. When the prosecution alleges that there occurred several instances of using forged Form III certificates to

¶33

¶34

B.A.No.9094 of 2021

¶35

attend the driving test, it indicates that the Department officials were sleeping over and there was inaction on their part.

¶36

In the instant case, creation of false documents was

¶37

done by the authorities of the driving school, on whom the Department had to depose faith and confidence. When there is an allegation that several instances of creation of false document have taken place the investigating agency is expected to ascertain its extent and the ramification. If so, releasing of the petitioner without having an opportunity for the investigating agency to look into in detail their role, may affect the investigation adversely. In the said circumstances, the petitioners cannot be granted prearrest bail. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to the petitioners to surrender

¶38

before the investigating officer, so that the agency can carry out the investigation, and to immediately produce the petitioners before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

¶39

Hence the petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and on surrender, the

¶40

¶41

B.A.No.9094 of 2021

¶42

Investigating Officer after necessary interrogation and formalities, shall produce them before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated in Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On such production of the petitioners, the bail applications, if filed, shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate on the same day itself.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

amk

B.A.No.9094 of 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :

¶50

ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1593 OF 2021 OF SOORANADU POLICE STATION DATED 9-11-2021.

¶51

ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DRIVING SCHOOL LICENSE ISSUED BY THE MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT.

Shaji., v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji., 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

Mohammed Musthafa T.V Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ismail E.K. Vs State of Kerala

Arunputhran (Shaji) Vs State of Kerala

Anitha Babu, Vs State of Kerala

David Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Thoufeeq Vs State of Kerala