Rajesh vs State

T.V.Thamilselvi, J

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.11.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 465, 467, 471, 475 of I.P.C. and Sec. 12(1)(a), 12(1)(b) of Passport Act, 1967 in Crime No.3 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

The case of prosecution is that one Veeramuthu applied for renewal of passport in Singapore embassy and the same was received by the respondent police for verification. When the defacto complainant went for verification, he came to know that Veeramuthu is working in Attur Ammapalayam Aavn Centre and during investigation, it is revealed that the petitioner, who is relative of one Veeramuthu and on 18.07.2002 since the petitioner not completed 18 years, he misused the documents and photos of Veeramuthu and went to Singapore. Hence, the complaint was registered against the petitioner.

The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that he is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence. He would submit that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. He would also submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 44 days from 13.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner is the sole accused and by producing fake passport, he travelled to Singapore and no previous case pending against him. He would also submit that if he is released on bail, he would hamper the investigation and tamper the witnesses and the investigation is almost completed. However, he would vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

Considering the facts and circumstances and also the fact that no previous antecedents pending against him, investigation is almost completed and now the immigration authorities recovered his passport and other documents and also considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing separate bonds for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, in which one surety must be a blood surety, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem, and on further conditions that::

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall stay at Salem District and report before the Town Police Station, Hasthamatty on alternative days at 10.30 a.m for the period of three months and thereafter, he shall appear before respondent police on every Saturday at 10.30 a.m. for another period of three months.

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.