High CourtsSingle Bench

Haneefa A vs State Of Kerala And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 30 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 KL CK 0355

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 419, 420, 461, 468, 471 · Passports Act, 1967 — Section 12(1)(b)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2012 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 474 words
1.

This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.

2.

The applicant is an accused in Crime No.793/2010 of Hosdurg Police Station for having allegedly committed the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 461, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act.

3.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that a day prior to 20.06.2010 the applicant had allegedly submitted an application for a passport before the Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode as File No.B.42684/10 and when it was sent for verification to the police, the police found that the applicant's name was mentioned as Mohammed Monu, S/o Moideen Kunhi and the address was also given. But the applicant was residing in another address and his name was also wrongly mentioned. On further verification of the electoral I.D. card, it was also found to be forged, and therefore, the crime was registered.

4.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. It is also submitted that he entrusted the documents to a travel agency and that they have misused the same. He has no other criminal antecedents and he is willing to cooperate with the investigation, and therefore, seeks anticipatory bail.

5.

Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

The incident took place in the year 2010 and the applicant has been available, but he has not been taken into custody so far. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation and his present address is found to be correct. Hence, I find no reason for fleeing from justice. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation. The documents, which he has produced are alleged to be forged, require expert opinion and since he is willing to cooperate with the investigation and he is putting the blame on the travel agency, that aspect also has to be investigated. Hence, the applicant is entitled to a pre-arrest bail on conditions.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to surrender before the investigating officer within two weeks. In the event of arrest, after interrogation and recovery, if any, the applicant shall be released on bail on the execution of a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only), with two solvent sureties for the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the investigating officer, and on the following conditions:

(i) He shall not influence or intimidate witnesses or tamper with evidence;

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for and shall cooperate with the investigation; and

(iii) During the bail period, he shall not get involved in any similar offences.

In case of breach of the bail conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of the bail before the jurisdictional court.