Fasara Rahman vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 6785 Ker

BAIL APPL. NO. 3250 OF 2022              1



                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945
                              BAIL APPL. NO. 3250 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
     1    FASARA RAHMAN
          AGED 27 YEARS
          D/O.ABDU RAHIMAN IBRAHIM, AGED 27 YEARS, AMINAS,
          KUTHUPARAMBA, KOTTAYAM MALABAR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN
          - 670643

      2        ABDU RAHIMAN IBRAHIM
               AGED 63 YEARS
               S/O. IBRAHIM ANOOR MAHAL, BADAGARA BEACH, CUSTOMS
               ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673103

      3        MUHAMMED RISHAD
               AGED 38 YEARS
               S/O.MAMMU ULLIVEETTIL, RESIDING AT AMINAS HOUSE,
               KUTHUPARAMBA, KOTTAYAM MALABAR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN
               - 670643

               BY ADV K.MOHANAKANNAN


RESPONDENT/S:
     1    STATE OF KERALA
          REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
          KOCHI, PIN - 682031

      2        STATION HOUSE OFFICER
               BADAGARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673101

               BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR


OTHER PRESENT:
          SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, PP

     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 BAIL APPL. NO. 3250 OF 2022      2




                      P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                ---------------------------------------
                        B.A. No. 3250 of 2022
                 --------------------------------------
               Dated this the 20th day of June, 2023


                              ORDER

This Bail Application filed under Section 438 of Criminal

Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)

2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.

354/2022 of Vadakara Police Station. The above case is

registered for the offences punishable under Secs. 465,

466, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC. The defacto complainant in this

case is the former husband of the 1st petitioner.

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioners forged

defacto complainant's signature for correcting the birth

certificate of the daughter of the 1st petitioner and used the

same for obtaining passport and thereby committed the

offences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The counsel for the petitioners reiterated the

contentions raised in this writ petition. The counsel also

submitted that the 1st petitioner is the wife of the defacto

complainant and the 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1 st

petitioner. The 3rd petitioner is the present husband of the

1st petitioner. It is stated that the allegation against the

petitioners are not correct. It is also submitted that this

Court passed an interim order not to arrest the petitioners

and that order is in force. The Public Prosecutor opposed

the bail application. The Public Prosecutor submitted that

the investigation is almost over and awaiting the FSL

report.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I think the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is

not necessary. It is true that the allegations against the

petitioners are very serious. But the investigation is almost

over and the investigating officer is waiting for the FSL

report. In such circumstances, the custodial interrogation of

the petitioners is not necessary. Moreover, the defacto

complainant is the husband of the 1 st petitioner and there

are matrimonial disputes between the 1 st petitioner and the

defacto complainant.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case, I think this bail application can be allowed on

stringent conditions.

8. Moreover, it is a well accepted principle that, the

bail is the rule and the jail is the exception. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of

Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), after considering

all the earlier judgments, observed that, the basic

jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same inasmuch

as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception

so as to ensure that, the accused has the opportunity of

securing fair trial.

9. Considering the dictum laid down in the above

decision and considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, this Bail Application is allowed with the following

directions:

1. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating

Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo

interrogation;

2. After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer

proposes to arrest the petitioners, they shall be released on

bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees

Fifty Thousand only) each with two solvent sureties each

for the like sum to the satisfaction of the officer concerned;

3. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating

Officer for interrogation as and when required. The

petitioners shall co-operate with the investigation and shall

not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or

promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the

Court or to any police officer;

4. Petitioners shall not leave India without permission

of the jurisdictional Court;

5. Petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to

the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the

commission of which they are suspected;

6. If any of the above conditions are violated by the

petitioners, the jurisdictional Court can cancel the bail in

accordance to law, even though the bail is granted by this

Court.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS