Noushad Manikoth Beladath vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 9165 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
         Wednesday, the 23rd day of August 2023 / 1st Bhadra, 1945
                        BAIL APPL. NO. 6777 OF 2023

         CRIME NO.13/2018 OF AMBALATHARA POLICE STATION, KASARGOD




PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

     NOUSHAD MANIKOTH BELADATH, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KHADER MANIKOTH,
     BELADATH HOUSE, MANIKOTH P.O, KANHANGAD TALUK, KASARGOD, PIN -
     671329

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

     STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
     KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

     This Bail application coming on for orders upon perusing the
petition and upon hearing the arguments of M/S C.S.MANU, DILU JOSEPH,
C.A.ANUPAMAN, T.B.SIVAPRASAD, C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR, MANJU E.R, ANANDHU
SATHEESH, ALINT JOSEPH & PAUL JOSE, Advocates for the petitioner and
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the court passed the following:
                                VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
               .................................................................
                              B.A.No. 6777 of 2023
               .................................................................
                 Dated this the 23rd day of August, 2023


                                        ORDER

Application for anticipatory bail.

2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.13 of 2018 of

Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod registered alleging

commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and

471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport

Act, 1967.

3. The prosecution allegation is that the accused with an

intention to cheat the Government obtained Indian passport bearing

No.G-2807999 willfully showing wrong address.

4. Petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in

the abovesaid crime and that he is not in possession of the passport

mentioned in Annexure-A1 FIR. Petitioner has approached this Court

earlier filing B.A.No.6467 of 2022 wherein this Court has directed the

petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and co-operate

with the investigation and also issued an order not to arrest the

petitioner in the meanwhile. It appears that the petitioner did not

comply with the said directions. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that at that time the petitioner was laid up due to covid and

was abroad and that is the reason why he could not comply with the

said directions. Later on the said bail application was dismissed as

withdrawn as per Annexure-A9 order. Subsequently petitioner moved

another application for bail which was also dismissed as per

Annexure-A10 order. Petitioner submits that at the time of dismissal of

bail application as per Annexure-A10 order petitioner could not

substantiate the reason why he could not appear before the

investigating officer as directed in Annexure-A8 order passed by this

Court. Petitioner further submits that there is total violation of the

directions issued by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of

Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 inasmuch as Section 41A notice was issued

only after the intervention of this Court as per the direction issued in

Annexure-A13 judgment. Petitioner submits that he is ready and

willing to surrender before the police and co-operate with the

investigation.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application for

bail mainly contending that on earlier occasion this Court directed the

petitioner to appear before the investigating officer and co-operate

with the investigation, but the petitioner did not comply with the same.

Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that notice under Section

41A was issued to the petitioner and since the petitioner was abroad,

the same has been returned back unserved.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking

into consideration the fact that the crime was registered as early as in

2018 and the specific undertaking given by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner will appear before the investigating officer

on any date fixed by this Court and co-operate with the investigation, I

am inclined to grant interim bail as follows:

Petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer on

01.09.2023 at 10.00 a.m. and subject himself for interrogation on that

day and on any other day/days as directed by the investigating officer

between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. In the event of the arrest of the

petitioner in connection with the abovesaid crime, he shall be

produced before the jurisdictional court on the very same day and

shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions.

(i) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like

sum to the satisfaction of the Jurisdictional court.

(ii) He shall appear before the investigating officer in Crime No.13 of

2018 of Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod as when required for

the investigation.

(iii) He shall not attempt to influence the defacto complainant or

interfere with the investigation or to influence or intimidate any witness

in Crime No.13 of 2018 of Ambalathara Police Station, Kasaragod.

(iv) He shall not involve in any other crime while on bail.

If any of the aforesaid conditions are violated, the

investigating officer in Crime No.13 of 2018 of Ambalathara Police

Station, Kasaragod may file an application before the jurisdictional

Court, for cancellation of bail.

It is made clear that it is within the power of the police to

investigate the matter and if necessary to effect recoveries on the

information if any given by the petitioner even when the petitioner is

on bail as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal

and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663).

Post on 11.09.2023.

Sd/-

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

cks