Madras High Court
Janarajan @ Krishnamurali vs State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By The ... on 6 October, 2005
Author: T.V. Masilamani
Bench: T.V. Masilamani
ORDER T.V. Masilamani, J.
1. The Court made the following order:
The petitioner was arrested on 21.1.2005 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 13(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 14 of Foreigner Act read with Section 3(2) of Foreigners Order 1948.
2. Heard both sides as well as the counsel for the intervener.
3. The petitioner is the 17th accused in the above case. He was arrested by the respondent police on 21.1.2005 when he was about to leave from Rameswaram with other accused in an illegal ferry to reach Sri Lanka and at that time, he has neither passport nor visa and his two daughters were also found with him. Hence, the respondent registered a case against him and other accused under the said provisions of law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is having permanent residence at Valasaravakkam and inasmuch as his parents are residing along with the children of the petitioner, who are studying at Holy Cross School, Valasaravakkam, he will not abscond or evade due process of law. Further he has contended that since final report has been filed in this case an 31.8.2005, there is no possibility for tampering with the evidence in this case. Further, the petitioner is entitled to the statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. as the final report was not filed when the statutory period expired. Further since all the co-accused had been released on bail, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has contended that the petitioner fraudulently identified himself as Krishna Murali, son of Krishna Pillai as a Sri Lankan citizen. Similarly, he falsely identified the children under different names as Sri Lankan citizens and as daughters of himself and the 18th accused, second wife of the petitioner. But on the contrary, the 18th accused filed a bail petition and after obtaining bail, she absconded. Similarly, the petitioner filed a bail petition in Crl.M.P. No. 297 of 2005 before the Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram calling himself as Krishna Murali, son of Krishna Pillai and a citizen and resident of Sri Lanka, though he holds passport showing himself as resident of Germany. In spite of the bail granted by the Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram on 1.2.2005, the petitioner did not produce sureties within the stipulated time and therefore he has contended that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond again.
6. Further learned Counsel for the intervener has also endorsed the same argument put forth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) and submitted that the petition filed by the intervener before the Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner was also dismissed and the Criminal Revision Case filed against that order in this Court was allowed on 29.7.2005 in Crl.R.C. No. 266 of 2005. Further he has contended that, since the petitioner has committed the offence of cheating, forgery, impersonating, making false declaration, etc., he is not entitled to be released on bail and in support of such contention, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994 (1) LW 21, wherein it has been held as follows:
"A person whose case its based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
7. Further he has referred to Sections 3 and 14(b) of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Order 3(1) and (2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 to show that since the petitioner entered into the territory of India without a valid passport or visa and that too in violation of the permission regarding point of entry into the country, he has been prosecuted. Further he has submitted that the foreigners, like the petitioner, when convicted are likely to be deported after serving the sentence in accordance with law and he has referred to the decision Bisharat Ali Rajut v. Union of India, 2003 (12) SCC 215, in support of such contention. Similarly, even otherwise persons coming to India without passport, visa, etc. have to be identified, detained and deported from the country and since the petitioner has no legal right to stay in the country without valid passport, visa, he cannot be enlarged on bail. He has cited the decisions A.I. Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, and A.I. Lawyers Forum for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, , in support of such contentions.
8. A careful, consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the intervener and that of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), in the light of the principles of law enunciated in the decisions cited above, this Court is of the view that since a prime facie case has been made out against; the petitioner for violation of the said provisions of law, he has no legal authority to seek for bail in this case. Further, as has been rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the intervener, if bail is granted, he cannot stay in India even for a single day without a valid passport, visa, etc. and therefore this Court is of the considered view that he has to await the result of the trial of the said case against him.
9. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., such contention has no force for the simple reason that even according to him final report in this case has been filed as early as 31.8.2005. Further, as has been held above, even if such provision is to be invoked, bail cannot be granted for the fact that the petitioner has no valid passport, visa, etc., to stay in India so as to attend the hearing of the trial in the said case. In any view of the matter, this Court finds that the petitioner cannot be enlarged on bail.
10. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is dismissed.