IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1061 of 2009() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.541/2008 OF CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,KOZHIKODE) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- VELAYUDHAN , S/O.KARAPPAN, AYANOORPOTTA HOUSE, CHELEMBRA P.O., MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. MR.SIBY MATHEW, MR.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.1061 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 5th June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions court, Kozhikode in crime No.2345/2008 of City Traffic Police Station, Kozhikode. As all the offences are bailable, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition under Annexure-A2 order. Thereafter, petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and applied for bail and was released on bail. Town police station has registered Annexure-A1 FIR and registered crime No.541/2008 for the offences under Sections 205 and 419 of Indian Penal Code alleging that petitioner impersonated and obtained bail in Crime No.2345/2008. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that none of the offences is attracted and therefore the crime is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Public prosecutor were heard. 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out that in Crime No.2345/2008 petitioner has not taken bail as somebody else representing that he is that accused. On the belief that he was arrayed as an accused he obtained bail and it was with notice to Assistant Public Prosecutor and hence no offence is committed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner approached the sessions court and got a dismissal of the petition, the offences being bailable and thereafter obtained bail from the Magistrate as if, he is the accused when he is not the accused and therefore prima facie he committed the offence. 5. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the materials, I find no substance whatsoever, in the allegation raised against the petitioner. Petitioner did not approach the sessions court under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure or the Magistrate impersonating as anybody else. On the other hand, he filed an application for anticipatory bail before Sessions court as well as later for bail before the Magistrate in his own name contending that he is the accused. Petitioner applied for bail on the belief that he is the accused therein. 3 Bail was granted after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor. It is not disputed that even before the sessions court or when he was released on bail by the Magistrate it was pointed out that he is not the accused. If that was pointed out, the petition would have been dismissed on that reason. There is no allegation that petitioner appeared or represented that he is another person who is the accused and then obtained bail. When he appeared before the court and obtained bail in his own name, petitioner has not committed any offence either under Section 205 or 419 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, prosecution of the petitioner is only an abuse of process of court. In such circumstances, petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 FIR No.541/2008 of City Traffic Police Station, Calicut is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.