IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 3609 of 2009()
1. JALEEL, AGED 43 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
K.T.SANKARAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------
B.A. NO. 3609 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd July, 2009
O R D E R
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.190
of 2009 of Kasaragod Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 255, 260 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Kasaragod
submitted a petition to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kasaragod
stating that out of the 73 articles presented by the Regional
Transport Officer, Kasaragod for booking as speed post articles on
16.3.2009, four articles were found to bear postage stamps of the
denomination of Rs.20/-, which were suspected to be fake. On the
basis of this petition, a crime was registered. On investigation, it
was revealed that the fake stamps were affixed on envelops
submitted to the RTO for the purpose of sending driving licence to
the addressees by post. For getting a driving licence, the applicant
B.A. NO. 3609 OF 2009
:: 2 ::
has to present a self addressed envelop with the required postage
stamps to the RTO. It is alleged that the petitioner, who is running a
driving school, has submitted these envelops on which fake postage
stamps were seen affixed. The petitioner could not be arrested as
he was absconding.
4. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail before
this Court as B.A.No.1699 of 2009, which was disposed of as per the
order dated 3.4.2009. The petitioner was directed to surrender
before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation on
13.4.2009. A direction was issued to the investigating officer to
produce the petitioner on the same day before the Magistrate and
the learned Magistrate was also directed to consider and dispose of
the application for regular bail preferably on the same date. The
petitioner did not surrender as directed. Later, he filed B.A.No.2364
of 2009 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That
application was dismissed by me on 28.5.2009. Thereafter, the
petitioner surrendered before Court on 8.6.2009 and he was
remanded to judicial custody.
5. Grave offences have been alleged against the petitioner.
B.A. NO. 3609 OF 2009
:: 3 ::
Counterfeiting government stamps is a very serious offence. It is
punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment by other
description for the term which may extend to ten years and with fine.
The investigating agency filed an application before the learned
Magistrate for getting custody of the petitioner for interrogation.
When the petitioner was produced before Court on 11.6.2009, he
stated before Court that he was not physically and mentally fit. The
learned Magistrate directed the petitioner to be subjected to
examination by the Superintendent of General Hospital, Kasaragod.
The Superintendent of the General Hospital issued a certificate
stating that the accused was physically and mentally fit. It is stated
that thereafter, the petitioner was interrogated by the investigating
officer.
6. According to the prosecution, one fake stamp was seized
on a search conducted in the house of the petitioner. The envelops
containing fake stamps were seen forwarded to the India Security
Press through messenger. The covers were received by the India
Security Press only on 25.6.2009. It would appear that the envelops
containing fake stamps were sent to the India Security Press only
during last week of June, 2009. The examination of the stamps
B.A. NO. 3609 OF 2009
:: 4 ::
could not be conducted by the India Security Press as they
demanded a sum of Rs.1,800/- as the examination fee. It is stated
that a charge of Rs.100/- is to be paid for examination of each
document. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and the police
constable who went from Kerala to the India Security Press have
come back. It is not clear whether the required amount was
deposited.
7. As stated earlier, the petitioner is running a driving school.
On 19.3.2009, search was conducted in the driving school. It is
stated that computer, scanner, printer etc. were seized from the
driving school. These articles were sent to the C-DAC for
examination and verification. Learned Public Prosecutor states that
the report from C-DAC is not received so far.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
Section 255 was sought to be added only to see that the petitioner is
not granted bail. He also submitted that the court must take serious
note of such steps on the part of the investigating agency as the
freedom of the citizen is the most important aspect. I do not agree
with the learned counsel for the petitioner. If Section 255 was added
B.A. NO. 3609 OF 2009
:: 5 ::
originally, anybody could say that the investigating agency was
wrong. Even if a person produces an article on which a fake or
counterfeit stamp is affixed, it cannot be assumed that he has done
the counterfeiting. That is why, probably, Section 260 was shown as
the Section under which the offence was committed. Later, the
investigating agency came to the conclusion that the petitioner
himself is the person who has counterfeited the stamps and
accordingly, Section 255 was added.
9. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 8.6.2009. In the
nature of the allegations levelled against him and in view of the
nature and character of the offence, I do not think that it is safe to
release the petitioner on bail at this stage. If the petitioner is
released on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood of the
evidence being tampered or the witnesses being intimidated or
influenced by him. From the sequence of events, it can be seen that
the petitioner was not co-operating with the investigating agency and
he has not even complied with the direction issued by this Court.
The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner was
involved in CR.No.130 of 2005 of Badiadka Police Station where the
allegation was that the petitioner forged a driving licence. He is
B.A. NO. 3609 OF 2009
:: 6 ::
involved in other offences as well. If bail is granted to the petitioner
at this point of time, there is also a likelihood of the petitioner making
himself scarce.
10. In the facts and circumstances mentioned in paragraph 6
above, the investigating agency shall take prompt steps to expedite
the further investigation of the case.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/