Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ismayil vs State Of Kerala on 24 June, 2016

Author: Sunil Thomas

Bench: Sunil Thomas

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

         FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/3RD ASHADHA, 1938

                   Bail Appl..No. 3687 of 2016 ()
                   -------------------------------

     CRIME NO. 1224/2015 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION , KOZHIKODE


PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:-:
-----------------------

            ISMAYIL,
            SON OF ABDULLA, AGED 33 YEARS,
            KUTTIYIL VEEDU, PURAMERI AMSOM,
            AROOR DESOM, VADAKARA TALUK,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.


            BY ADVS.SRI.S.M.PRASANTH
                    SRI.G.RENJITH
                    SMT.ASHA BABU
                    SRI.ARUNBABY STEPHEN
                    SMT.R.S.ASWINI SANKAR
                    SMT.S.PARVATHI

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:-:
------------------------------------

          1. STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
            ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

          2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 670 311.


            R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.T.SHEEBA

       THIS BAIL APPLICATION  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON  15-06-
2016, THE COURT ON 24/6/2016 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:



                     SUNIL THOMAS, J.
                    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     B.A.No.3687of 2016
                     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 24thday of June, 2016

                             O R D E R

This application for anticipatory bail is filed by the sole accused, who apprehends arrest in crime No.1224/2015 of the Nadakkavu police station for offences punishable under sections 468,471 and 409 IPC.

2. It appears that the petitioner is working in the Food Corporation of India, District Office, Calicut on daily basis as Data Entry Operator from June 2015 onwards. A complaint was laid by one T.K.Ramesh, to the Area Manager of the FCI, Calicut, stating that the petitioner herein had offered a job in the FCI to the wife of the said person. It was stated that the petitioner introduced himself as the manager of the FCI, called the wife to the office, conducted a farce of an interview and received Rs.1,80,000/- from her. Appointment order was also given to her. Thereafter, the husband went to the FCI office and made enquiries, whereupon it was revealed that the appointment order was a forged one. Pursuant to the above, complaint was laid by the manager of the FCI to the police on 18/10/2015. Pursuant to it crime has been registered. Crux of B.A.No.3687/2016 2 the allegation is that the petitioner herein had forged the letter head, used the seal and issued the fake appointment order using the name, emblem, round seal of the FCI and fake signature of the regional manager.

3. The petitioner had moved an earlier bail application as B.A.No.8304/2015, which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 10/2/2016 having regard to the serious nature of the allegations. It was further stated that the manner in which the forgery was committed was a matter to be established by a detailed investigation.

4. The present application is filed on the ground that the petitioner herein is an innocent person and that he was trapped into the incident by yet another person who is a political leader. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this was revealed in the course of investigation.

5. In the light of the above submission, the case diary was called for and perused. The case diary indicates that nothing has been brought out to indicate the involvement of any other person other than the accused herein. The only involvement is that of one person by name Sathyajith who had introduced the defacto complainant to the accused. The materials on record indicate that the defacto complainant had B.A.No.3687/2016 3 thereafter directly contacted the accused, had dealings with him and ultimately a fake appointment order was handed over to the defacto complainant. It is also stated that the money was directly given to the accused who had also conducted a farce of an interview.

6. Hence, I am inclined to hold that there is nothing on record to show that any other person is involved in the offence. In the light of the above, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

The bail application fails and is dismissed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS Judge dpk /true copy/ PS to Judge.

B.A.No.3687/2016 4