IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 664 of 2010()
1. ANGEELAM POWER, AGED 58 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :03/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No. 664 of 2010
------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010
O R D E R
This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused
in Crime No.40/2010 of Kovalam Police Station.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under
Sections 7 and 14 of the Foreigners Act and Rule 14 of the
Registration of the Foreigners Rules.
3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is a foreign
national, who allowed other foreign nationals to stay in
Naalangoli Tourist Home Private Limited, Kovalam without giving
the necessary information to the police officer concerned.
4. Section 7 of the Foreigners Act reads as follows:
“Obligation of hotel keepers and others to
furnish particulars:
It shall be the duty of the keeper of any
premises whether furnished or unfurnished
where lodging or sleeping accommodation is
provided for reward, to submit to such person
and in such manner such information in respect
B.A. No. 664 / 2010 2
of foreigners accommodated in such premises,
as may be prescribed.
(2) Every person accommodated in any
such premises shall furnish to the keeper
thereof a statement containing such particulars
as may be required by the keeper for the
purpose of furnishing the information referred
to in sub-section(1).
(3) The keeper of every such premises
shall maintain a record of the information
furnished by him under sub-section(1) and of
the information obtained by him under sub-
section (2) and such record shall be maintained
in such manner and preserved for such period
as may be prescribed, and shall at all times be
open to inspection by any police officer or by a
person authorised in this behalf by the District
Magistrate.
(4) If in any area prescribed in this behalf
the prescribed authority by notice published in
such manner as may in the opinion of the
authority be best adapted for informing the
persons concerned so directs, it shall be the
duty of every person occupying or having under
his control any residential premises to submit to
such person and in such manner such
B.A. No. 664 / 2010 3
information in respect of foreigners
accommodated in such premises as may be
specified; and the provisions of sub-section (2)
shall apply to every person accommodated in
any such premises.
7A. Power to control places frequented by
foreigners:
(1) The prescribed authority may, subject
to such conditions as may be prescribed, direct
the owner or person having control of any
premises used as a restaurant or as a place of
public resort or entertainment or as a club and
frequented by foreigners-
a) to close such premises either entirely or
during specified periods, or
b) to use or permit the use of such
premises only under such conditions as may be
specified, or
c) to refuse admission to such premises
either to all foreigners or to any specified
foreigner or class of foreigners.
(2). A persons to whom any direction has
been given under sub-section (1) shall not,
while such direction remain in force, use or
permit to be used any other premises for any of
the aforesaid purposes, except with the
B.A. No. 664 / 2010 4
previous permission in writing of the prescribed
authority and in accordance with any conditions
which that authority may think fit to impose.
(3). Any person to whom any direction has
been given under sub-section(1) and who is
aggrieved thereby may, within thirty days from
the date of such direction, appeal to the Central
Government; and the decision of the Central
Government in the matter shall be final.”
5. Section 14 of the Foreigners Act provides that if any
person contravenes the provisions of this Act or of any order
made thereunder, or any direction given in pursuance of this Act
or such order, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
6. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on
02.02.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted for an
interim order. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor the following order was passed
on 02.02.2010.
“The learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner will not be
arrested for a period of ten days,on condition
that the petitioner shall surrender her
B.A. No. 664 / 2010 5
passport and travel documents before the
commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram
City, on or before 03.02.2010.
Post after a week”
7. The condition in the order dated 02.02.2010 is that the
petitioner shall surrender her passport and travel documents
before the Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City, on
or before 03.02.2010.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
petitioner has not complied with the direction. No explanation is
offered by the petitioner for not complying with the direction in
the order dated 02.02.2010. The petitioner is represented by
another counsel now.
9. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in
nature. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the
discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be
required in the present case. Accommodating foreigners in a
tourist home without complying with the mandatory requirements
of the Foreigners Act is very serious. The provisions of the
Foreigners Act in this regard are intended to achieve certain
B.A. No. 664 / 2010 6
objects. It is aimed at getting the necessary correct information
regarding the movement of foreign nationals in the country. I do
not think that in a case of this nature, the accused is entitled to
anticipatory bail. Moreover, in spite of the specific order passed
on 02.02.2010, the petitioner has not complied with the direction
and no explanation is offered by the petitioner for not complying
with the direction in the order dated 02.02.2010.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the
petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief under
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Accordingly, the Bail Application is dismissed.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
ln