Allowed

Muhammed Sudheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Feb 2022Bail Appl./132/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted anticipatory bail to the sole accused in a cheating and forgery case involving document misuse for visa acquisition. Bail was allowed despite non-surrender due to pandemic considerations, subject to stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on conditions of surrendering within three days, executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, and adhering to strict conditions regarding court appearance

Muhammed Sudheer Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 132 OF 2022

¶5

CRIME NO.1184/2021 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station,

¶6

Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

MUHAMMED SUDHEER,

¶9

AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED ALI, KARUPPAM VEETTIL, VADANAPPALLY VILLAGE, VADANAPILLY DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 614.

BY ADV ARJUN S.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶14

SMT.MAYA M.N., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL

¶16

HEARING ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

B.A.No.132 of 2022

¶19

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, J.

¶20

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

¶21

B.A.No. 132 of 2022

¶22

----------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2022

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

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

¶25

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.1184 of 2021 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged are under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶26

The allegations are that the petitioner forged identity card and enrollment certificate of the Bar Council of Kerala and presented the same in the Embassy of the United Kingdom purporting to be the original documents issued in his name, for the purpose of obtaining a Visa to immigrate to the United Kingdom. Therefore, the petitioner committed the alleged offences.

¶27

The petitioner has earlier filed B.A.No.8855 of 2021 before this Court. That application was dismissed on

¶28

¶29

B.A.No.132 of 2022

¶30

23.12.2021 with the following directions:

¶31

'Hence, the bail application is dismissed, with a direction to the petitioner to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks from today. In the event of his surrendering before the investigating officer, after interrogation and recovery, if any, the petitioner shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate within the period stipulated under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. On production, the learned Magistrate shall consider the bail application, if any, is filed as expeditiously as possible, preferably on the same day itself.'

¶32

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

¶33

The petitioner has come forward with the present application contending that in the light of the subsequent developments that Sri.Mohammed Asif @ Mijo, who is stated to be owner of M/s Emigro Study Abroad Pvt.Ltd., Irinjalakkuda, the establishment which had agreed to arrange Visa for the petitioner to go United Kingdom, paid Rs.50,000/initially in three instalments and thereafter Rs.3 lakhs to the petitioner. Annexure A7 is stated to be bank account details

¶34

¶35

B.A.No.132 of 2022

¶36

showing the payments. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that those payments, particularly Rs.3 lakhs, was made by the said Mijo in order to see that the investigation in this matter is not progressed so as to rope in him also. It is his further submission that the said facts would certainly reveal the innocence of the petitioner and in view of that matter, he is entitled to get anticipatory bail.

¶37

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that

¶38

despite giving notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. as early in November 2021 and direction by this Court as per order dated 23.12.2021, the petitioner refused to appear before the investigating officer and in such circumstances, he is not entitled to get the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

¶39

One of the contentions set forth by the petitioner is

¶40

that, in fact, he is the real victim. That, not only the petitioner, but so many others are also cheated in similar way. In contending so, the petitioner tried to absolve himself from the liability. However, one alarming fact revealed is that many persons/institutions working in the area of arranging Visa and

¶41

¶42

B.A.No.132 of 2022

¶43

transfer documents for prospective employees abroad, often involved in creating false documents with a view to misrepresent facts and mislead the authorities, including the Foreign Embassies. This crime was registered as early as on 28.07.2021. It appears that the investigating agency did not delve into those aspects of the matter. Serious investigation into such allegations is required since such incident will tarnish the reputation of the country itself. I hope and expect that the investigating agency will seriously look into the matter and make all efforts to curb such kind of illegal acts.

¶44

The petitioner would further contend that his signature and identification details were obtained by the institution run by Mijo and same were misused by them. Truth and falsity of the said contention is a matter to be probed into. An application in the name of the petitioner was happened to be submitted with a false statement and forged document. However, in the light of the fact that even after the registration of the crime, Sri.Mijo sent money to the petitioner gives credence, to a certain extent, to the contentions of the

¶45

¶46

B.A.No.132 of 2022

¶47

petitioner that he is a victim of the illegal act committed by Sri.Mijo. The fact that the petitioner did not respond to the notice issued by the police and also did not obey the directions in the order of this Court dated 23.12.2021, infact dis-entitles him from seeking for a discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. However, taking into account the present pandemic situation and the difficulties experienced by people thereby, I am taking a leniet view. At the same time investigation into the matter cannot be hampered with in any manner. The investigating agency should be able to reach a logical conclusion after collecting all the relevant materials. After taking all such matters into account, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on stringent conditions:

¶48

In the above circumstances, this bail application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within three days from today. After interrogation, in the event of his being arrested, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.2,00,000/-

¶49

¶50

B.A.No.132 of 2022

¶51

(Rupees two lakhs only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

¶52

(i) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer on every alternate day between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon for a period of one month;

¶53

(ii) He shall not go abroad without the permission of the jurisdictional Court and shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer;

¶54

(iii) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence; and

¶55

(iv) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any offence.

¶56

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall

¶57

be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶60

dkr

Muhammed Sudheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Sudheer 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

Kunjumon Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Abimon Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Vs the State of Kerala

Surendran Pillai, S/O Thankappan Pillai, Vs State of Kerala, Represented by

K.S.Vijayan Vs State of Kerala