Kerala High Court
Bail Appl./9465/2021 of AMAL BALAN Vs THE STATE OF KERALA on 31 December 2021
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH POUSHA, 1943 BAIL APPL. NO. 9465 OF 2021 CRIME NO.99/2021 OF CHERUPUZHA POLICE STATION, Kannur PETITIONER: AMAL BALAN AGED 23 YEARS S/O. BALAN, KONATH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
FRIDAY, THE 31[ST] DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 10TH POUSHA, 1943
BAIL APPL. NO. 9465 OF 2021
CRIME NO.99/2021 OF CHERUPUZHA POLICE STATION, Kannur PETITIONER:
AMAL BALANAGED 23 YEARSS/O. BALAN, KONATH VEETTIL HOUSE, PADIYOTTUCHAL, VAYAKKARA AMSOM, CHERUPUZHA, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV M.ANUROOP
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF KERALAREPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 (IN CRIME NO.99/2021 OF CHERUPUZHA POLICE STATION)
BY SMT.T.V.NEEMA - PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
This is an application filed u/s 438 of Code of CriminalProcedure seeking pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.99/2021 of Cherupuzha Police Station. The offences alleged are under Sections465, 466, 471 and 474 r/w 34 IPC.
3. The prosecution case in short is that the accusedcreated a forged police clearance certificate using duplicate sealand signature of the District Police Chief and used the saidcertificate as original by placing in a private company at Mumbaiand thereby committed the offence.
The prosecution case in short is that the accused
4. Heard both sides and perused the case diary.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is absolutely innocent and he has been falselyimplicated in the present case. He further submitted that thereare no materials to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime and hence he is entitled to get bail. The learned Public Prosecutoropposed the bail application. He contended that the allegedincident occurred as a part of the intentional criminal acts of thepetitioner and if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, itwould affect the course of investigation.6.The law with regard to the grant or refusal of pre-arrest bail is well settled. Pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as amatter of course. The power u/s 438 of Cr.P.C could be exercisedonly when a special case is made out, that too, recording reasonsthereof. Perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusationmade against the petitioner is well founded. The allegations madeagainst him is very serious in nature and it prima facie show apremeditated criminal act on his part. The investigation is in apreliminary stage. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner isnecessary for the purpose of investigation. As rightly argued bythe learned Public Prosecutor, the possibility of the petitionerinfluencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation cannot be ruled out if he is released on bail. Hence, consideringthe gravity of the offence and stage of investigation, I feel that itis not a fit case where extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with thisCourt u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. could be invoked. The application is onlyto be dismissed.
In the result, the bail application is dismissed.
ab
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATHJUDGE