Loading...

M.Kunhammed vs The State Of Kerala on 15 March, 2010

Kerala High Court
M.Kunhammed vs The State Of Kerala on 15 March, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information