IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl No. 6276 of 2007()
1. A.JEAM KHAN, S/O. ABDUL LATHEEF,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DY. S.P.,
For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :07/11/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
B.A.Nos.6276, 6277, 6278, 6279, 6280, 6296,
6448 & 6811 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of November, 2007
ORDER
Applications for regular bail. The common petitioner faces
allegations in 8 different crimes registered at various police stations in
Kerala, wherein the allegation is that fake currency notes of Rs.1,000/-
denomination were in circulation. The common feature in all these
crimes is that fake currency notes of the same number series were
involved in all the crimes. Investigation by the investigators led to the
detection of the role of the petitioner in such crimes. It is alleged that
the ones who were caught with the counterfeit currency notes had
ultimately obtained it through the petitioner. The investigation has
been taken over by the Crime Branch C.I.D Counterfeit Squad,
Trivandrum. Investigation is in progress now. The petitioner’s arrest
has been shown in all these crimes on various dates. He was actually
taken into custody on 16.08.07. He continues in custody from that
date though his arrest is recorded in different crimes on different
dates.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is absolutely innocent. The allegations raised against him in
B.A.Nos.6276, 6277, 6278, 6279, 6280, 6296,
6448 & 6811 of 2007 2
all these crimes are totally false and unsustainable. He further submits
that to vex and harass the petitioner, his arrest is not noted in all the
connected crimes immediately following his initial arrest on 16.08.07.
Unnecessarily there has been deliberate delay in the recording of
arrest in all these crimes after the initial arrest on 16.08.07. This is
with a mala fide intent to ensure that the petitioner is kept in custody
for as long as a period as possible.
3. The period of 3 months from the date of his arrest has not
elapsed so far and it is not necessary for me in these circumstances to
delve deeper into that contention.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that
the petitioner is one Jeam Khan. He does not have the name Sabu.
The investigation by the police had revealed complicity only of one
Sabu. All persons who allegedly had interaction with the accused have
referred to him as Sabu. At present the explanation is that Sabu
referred to the witnesses/co-accused earlier is really the petitioner,
whose name is Jeam Khan.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in these
circumstances, prays that the petitioner who has remained in custody
from 16.08.07 may now be enlarged on bail. He has absolutely no
complicity in any of these crimes, it is submitted.
B.A.Nos.6276, 6277, 6278, 6279, 6280, 6296,
6448 & 6811 of 2007 3
6. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.
The learned Public Prosecutor first of all submits that the allegations
are very serious. The petitioner’s involvement in the distribution of
counterfeit currency notes in all these crimes at various points in
Kerala is indicated clearly by the materials collected. The confession of
the petitioner also reveals his complicity without any doubt.
Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the petitioner is
not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this early stage of investigation,
submits the learned Public Prosecutor .
7. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the
fact that the petitioner had not revealed his real name ie. Jeam Khan
to the other co-accused with whom he had interaction in the ploy to
distribute counterfeit currency notes cannot clinch the issue now. It
cannot even be reckoned as relevant now as the statements recorded
from the co-accused as well as the petitioner herein clearly reveal that
the petitioner had not chosen to reveal his real name to persons with
whom he had to interact in this despicable deal. The mere fact that
the accused had used another name in the transactions in connection
with the crime in question with his associates is certainly not a valid
reason for this Court to concede any benefit or advantage to the
petitioner.
B.A.Nos.6276, 6277, 6278, 6279, 6280, 6296,
6448 & 6811 of 2007 4
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that
the investigation has not been taken up with the seriousness which it
requires. There was an earlier application for regular bail –
B.A.No.6296 of 2007 and this Court had directed that the investigation
must be completed by 20.09.07. That was as per order dated
10.09.07. In spite of that, investigation has not been completed. The
petitioner may, in these circumstances, be enlarged on bail, submits
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the
investigation is in progress. In a case like this, the Investigating
Officer may not be found fault with for not completing the
investigation immediately. In the very nature of the facts and
circumstances of this case, the investigator is entitled to and may be
granted reasonable further time to complete the investigation before
the question of release of the petitioner is considered, submits the
learned Public Prosecutor.
10. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in
the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor . I am satisfied, in the
facts and circumstances of this case that the petitioner does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail at this early stage. In coming to this
conclusion, I have taken note of the nature, gravity and seriousness of
B.A.Nos.6276, 6277, 6278, 6279, 6280, 6296,
6448 & 6811 of 2007 5
the offence alleged. I have taken note of the magnitude of the
culpable operation as indicated from the materials present on record in
these 8 cases. I have also taken note of the quality and quantum of
materials available. I have also taken into reckoning the stage of the
investigation and the magnitude of the task before the Investigating
Officer.
11. These applications for regular bail are, in these
circumstances, dismissed. I may hasten to observe that I expect the
Investigating Officer to complete the investigation as expeditiously as
possible. I do further observe that the petitioner shall be at liberty to
move this Court for bail again at a later stage of the investigation not
at any prior to 21.11.2007. This observation will not of course fetter
the right of the petitioner to claim bail by default under the proviso to
Section 167(2) Cr.P.C if he be entitled for such bail earlier than that
date, in any case.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-