IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 504 of 2010()
1. M.KUNHAMMED, AGED 59 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :15/03/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
B.A. No.504 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010
O R D E R
When the Bail Application came up for hearing on
25/02/2010, the following order was passed;
“This is an application for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime
No.2/2007 of Bediyaduka Police Station, Kannur.
2. The offences alleged against the
petitioner are under Sections 419, 468, 109 and 166
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act.
3. The gist of the prosecution case is the
following: The de facto complainant approached
accused Nos. 1 and 2 to get a passport. Accused
Nos. 1 and 2 were conducting a Travel Agency.
They collected money from the de facto complainant
towards expenses and also for police verification.
Accused No.3 is a police constable. It is alleged that
he also received money for police verification. Later,
it is stated that the documents belonging to the de
facto complainant were returned to him stating that
there was a raid in the Travel Agency and therefore
accused Nos.1 and 2 could not make arrangements
B.A. No.504/2010
2
for getting passport. The de facto complainant later
applied for passport. In that application, he stated
that he was not a holder of Indian passport and that
he had not applied for passport earlier. On
verification, the passport authorities found that
another passport had already been issued to the de
facto complainant. On verification, it was found that
the passport was issued in the name of the de facto
complainant with slight different address and that
this was done at the instance of accused Nos.1 and
2. It is alleged that the petitioner was in charge of
the Passport Verification Section at the relevant
time. It is submitted that there is no allegation that
the petitioner was directly involved in any
manipulation or in any fraud. The petitioner is
implicated in the case, according to the learned
counsel for the petitioner, only on the ground that
he was in charge of the Passport Verification Section
at the relevant time.
4. After having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor,
I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail
Application, an opportunity should be given to the
petitioner to appear before the investigating officer.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the
B.A. No.504/2010
3
petitioner to appear before the investigating officer
at 9 A.M. on 6th and 7th March, 2010.
5. Post on 15/03/2010.
6. It is submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested
until further orders in connection with Crime No. 2
of 2007 of Bediyaduka Police Station, Kannur.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of this
order before the investigating officer.”
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that the
petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order
dated 25/02/2010.
3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of
the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner.
There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the
petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release
him on bail on his executing bond for Rs.15,000/- with two
solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the
officer concerned, subject to the following conditions:
B.A. No.504/2010
4
A) The petitioner shall report before the
investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M.
on alternate Sundays, till the final report is filed
or until further orders;
B) The petitioner shall appear before the
investigating officer for interrogation as and
when required;
C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the
prosecution witnesses or tamper with the
evidence;
D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or
indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail;
E) In case of breach of any of the conditions
mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be
cancelled.
The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated
above.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm
