Allowed

Ansari Pallickalath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Aug 2022Bail Appl./2586/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to Ansari Pallickalath accused in a case under the Foreigners Act and IPC for maintenance of Form B register and transmission of Form C, imposing stringent conditions to remove him from the premises occasionally.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on conditions including execution of bond, cooperation with investigation, availability for interrogation, no tampering with evidence or witnesses, and no new crimes.

Ansari Pallickalath Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1944

¶5

BAIL APPL. NO. 2586 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.234/2022 OF Kalamassery Police Station, Ernakulam

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANSARI PALLICKALATH AGED 39 YEARS 90A, 'WHITE HOUSE', NETHAJI ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025

¶9

BY ADVS. P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH RENOY VINCENT ASWIN KUMAR M J ARUN ROY SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶12

BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEETHA S

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

BA No.2586 of 2022

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

B.A.No. 2586 of 2022

¶18

Dated this the 12^th day of August, 2022

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶21

Petitioner is arrayed as accused in Crime No.234 of 2022

¶22

of Kalamassery Police Station,Ernakulam registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections &(1), 7(3) read with Section 14(c) of Foreigners Act and Section 174, 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

The allegations that have been raised against the petitioner by the de facto complainant, who is apparently an officer of the Foreign Regional Registration Office, is to the effect that the petitioner has failed to maintain ‘Form B register’ and transmit copies of C Forms, as mandated under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946. To be even more specific, the two ‘discrepancies’ found by the officials of the Foreign Regional Registration Office during the course of an inspection at the hotel of the petitioner, that led to the registration of the FIR, is that the staff of the petitioner’s hotel had written the details of the foreign guests in the ‘Form B register’ instead of making the guests themselves write on it and also, the petitioner had failed to transmit ‘C Forms’ to the

¶24

BA No.2586 of 2022

¶25

¶26

Registration Officer, by uploading it online, within 24 hours of the arrival of a foreign guest. Even if both the allegations are presumed to be true, it would not tantamount to an offence under the Foreigners Act, 1946.

¶27

Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the abovesaid crime. Two allegations raised against the petitioner are that Form B registers were not properly maintained and there is delay in transmission of Form C. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation against the petitioner is that the entries in Form B registers were not done by the guests themselves and after pointing out the mistake by the authorities, petitioner therefore maintained Form B registers in accordance with law. As regards the delay in submission of Form C, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that there is some glitches in the official site at that time and further that all the details have been later on furnished by the petitioner. Petitioner further submits that he is not involved in any other crime.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for bail mainly contending that the abovesaid crime was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by an officer of the Foreign Regional Registration Office on the allegation that Form B registers are not properly maintained and there is mistakes in the entries in Form C submitted by the petitioner. As regards the mistakes pointed out, petitioner has a case that the guests at that time were from Maldives who do not require

¶29

BA No.2586 of 2022

¶30

¶31

visa and the column to note the visa details were filled giving their passport details.

¶32

It is seen that there is already an interim order not to arrest the petitioner which is still in force. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner but on stringent conditions.

¶33

Therefore, the bail application is disposed of with the following directions. The petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer on 29.08.2022 and co-operate with the investigation and also make himself available for interrogation on any other day or days as directed by the investigating officer. In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with Crime No.234 of 2022 of Kalamassery Police Station,Ernakulam, he shall be produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day and shall be released on bail on the following conditions:

¶34

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶35

(ii) He shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;

¶36

(iii) He shall not tamper with any evidence;

¶37

(iv) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts

¶38

BA No.2586 of 2022

¶39

¶40

of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶41

(v) He shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

¶42

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the

¶43

Investigating Officer in Crime No.234 of 2022 of Kalamassery Police Station,Ernakulam may file an application before jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail.

¶44

It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the information if any given by the petitioner even when the petitioner is on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663) .

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM

JUDGE

cks

Ansari Pallickalath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ansari Pallickalath 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saji Sam Vs State of Kerala

Sachin Baby, Vs State of Kerala

Ajith Nayarasseri Sivasankaran Vs State of Kerala

Karthikeyan Vs State of Kerala

Vaibhav Shetty Vs State of Kerala

. P.S.Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala