IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5885 of 2009() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO. 346/2009 OF BAKEL POLICE STATION ........................ PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------- K.N. MOHAMED JIFFRY, S/O. LATE K.N.K. AHAMMED, AGED 48 YEARS, K.N. HOUSE, P.O. BAKEL KOTTIKULAM, KASARGODE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, BY SRI. V. TEKCHAND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5885 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.346/2009 of Bakel Police Station, Kasaragode. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, Section 12(1A) of the Passport Act, Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act and Section 3 of the National Security Act. 3. The crime was registered on a complaint by one Mohammed Basheer alleging the offences against the petitioner. The complaint was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. 4. When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 24/11/2009, the following order was passed: “The crime was registered after the complaint filed by the de facto complainant was forwarded to B.A. No.5885/2009 2 the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offences alleged against the petitioner are grave in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner possesses only one passport and that the allegation of his possessing two passports is absolutely incorrect. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in other offences as well. 3. According to the petitioner, if he appears before police and explains the matter, he would be able to prove his innocence. If such a course is adopted, according to the petitioner, the investigating agency would also be able to arrive at a correct conclusion. 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 B.A. No.5885/2009 3 Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 9A.M. on 2nd and 3rd December, 2009. 5. Post on 10th December, 2009. 6. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders. It is made clear that the permission to appear before the investigating officer would not stand in any way considering the Bail Application on the merits.” 5. The petitioner has complied with the directions contained in the order dated 24/11/2009. 6. Thereafter on 10/12/2009, another order was passed in the case. The order reads as follows: “It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor that B.A. No.5885/2009 4 the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 24.11.2009. 2. One of the offences alleged against the petitioner is under Section 12(1 A) of the Passport Act. 3. The allegation is that the petitioner is a Srilankan citizen and he has procured an Indian Passport illegally. The case of the petitioner is that he has not procured such an Indian Passport. The investigating agency will verify whether the petitioner has procured an Indian Passport. This direction is required since the case was registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the purpose of ascertaining whether the petitioner has procured an Indian Passport, photographs of the petitioner, his fingerprints and other data would be necessary. For making available those data, the petitioner shall B.A. No.5885/2009 5 appear before the investigating officer on 15.12.2009 at 10. A.M. The investigating officer will verify and report to this court positively on or before 21st December, 2009 as to whether the petitioner is holding an Indian Passport. Post on 22.12.2009. The petitioner shall make available copy of this order before the Investigating Officer.” 7. The petitioner has complied with the directions contained in the order dated 10/12/2009 as well. 8. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner has complied with the directions issued by the Court, 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 B.A. No.5885/2009 6 conditions: A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 9 A.M and 11 A.M. on every Monday for a period of two months; 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