Nidhish Kalamkar vs State Of Kerala

Shircy V.

This is the fourth application for bail filed by the petitioner, who is undergoing incarceration since 15.01.2020 in Crime No. 10 of 2020 of

Perumpadappu Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 489E, 419 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, for his release on bail.

The prosecution allegation is that on 15.01.2020 at about 2.40 p.m., the petitioner and his wife, who is the co-accused, were intercepted by the

Police, while they were travelling in a car bearing registration No. MH 04-DB-7783, and on inspection of the car, they were found carrying 45 fake

notes of Rs.2000/- denomination, 52 fake notes of Rs.500 denomination, altogether having a value of Rs.1,16,000/-. They were also found in

possession of printer, Lap top, pendrive etc. On further inspection it was found that this petitioner was carrying a fake Aadhar Card in his name with a

fictitious address. The petitioner and other accused were apprehended then and there and the case was investigated by the investigating agency and

final report was filed. Now the case is pending before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Manjeri as S.C. No. 724 of 2020.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well the learned Public Prosecutor.

Admittedly this petitioner is a resident of Sivaji Nagar, Pune District, Maharashtra. The earlier bail applications were disposed of by this Court as it

was found that granting of bail will adversely affect the trial of the case. This petitioner has absolutely no place of abode in Kerala. The learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is intending to reside in Kerala, till the case is over, if released on bail. Therefore, along with this bail

application he has furnished the address of one Suresh stating that if he is released on bail, he would remain in Kerala by residing along with the said

person. So the apprehension that he may abscond has no force at all.

But the learned Public Prosecutor relying on the report of the investigating officer has submitted that in fact the said Suresh is not willing to

accommodate this petitioner in his residence as he is residing with his family in a small building having two rooms only. He has also stated before the

investigating officer that as suggested by one Vijayan, one of his friends, he agreed to be a surety, but he cannot accommodate him at his residence or

to arrange any accommodation for this petitioner in Kerala. So also, he has absolutely no connection with this petitioner.

This court on an earlier occasion, on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Pappu Yadav (2005 KHC 6044)

dismissed the subsequent application filed as no substantial change of circumstance has been pointed out by the learned counsel so as to have a fresh

look to the case so as to consider his request for bail favourably. This court, while disposing of B.A. No. 6684 of 2021 on 14.09.2021 directed the trial

court to expedite the trial of the case and dispose of the same within a period of three months.

But, the daily status of the trial court produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner indicates that the case was posted for trial. But it was

rescheduled due to the absence of the report from the Regional Forensic Laboratory. But now the examination report of the counterfeit notes has

already been received and that has been produced before the trial court by the investigating agency. The report is dated 18.11.2020. Since the

examination report is available before the court below, no doubt the trial of the case could be proceeded with. No doubt, the offences alleged against

this petitioner are grave and serious in nature and dealings with counterfeit will adversely affect the financial stability of the country. It is also an

organized crime, used for illegal activities across the country. It is important to note that he has no place of abode in Kerala and is having criminal

antecedents. If he is released on bail, when the case is ripe for trial, it will be difficult to secure his presence for trial. So he is not entitled to be

released on bail at this stage. But, as there is a direction to dispose of the case at the earliest in the earlier bail application itself and now the case is

ripe for trial, the trial court shall endeavour to proceed with the trial of the case and dispose of the same at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of

three months from today.

This bail application is disposed of with the above direction.