High CourtsSingle Bench

Liyakath Ali vs State Of Kerala

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 9 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 KL CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok Menon, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 468, 471 · Passport Act, 1967 — Section 12(1)(b)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2190 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

22 paragraphs · 415 words
1.

Application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The applicant is the second accused in Crime No.806/2017 of Nedumbassery Police Station,

for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport

Act.

2.

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the first accused had allegedly obtained a passport bearing No.H-2626628 from Malappuram Passport Office

and corrected the original date of birth from 18.04.1989 to 18.04.1987 in the passport and used the same to travel from Jeddah to Cochin on

07.06.2017. He was arrested at the Cochin International Airport and the statement given by him revealed the involvement of the applicant, who was

allegedly responsible for making the correction on the passport belonging to the 1st accused.

3.

The applicant states that he is innocent and the allegations are not true. The first accused is arrested on 07.06.2017 and the applicant was arrested

on 09.02.2021 and he has no role in the alleged act of forgery. Hence he may be released on bail.

4.

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

5.

The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the applicant is a notorious criminal. He is involved in several crimes during the year 2016 and 2017.

The applicant is also involved in forging marriage certificates, degree certificates etc and therefore the application for bail is vehemently opposed by

the learned Public Prosecutor.

6.

After having heard the submissions on both sides, I find the incident in this instant case took place in the year 2017. The applicant was available, but

his detention was not necessary. The first accused was arrested as early as 07.06.2017 and also released on bail. Under the circumstances, custodial

interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary.

7.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and the applicant is directed to 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 jurisdictional court and on the following conditions;

1.

He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

2.

He shall not attempt to influence or intimidate the witnesses.

3.

He shall not get involved in similar offences during the currency of the bail.

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