Kerala High Court
Abdul Latheef vs The State Of Kerala on 14 February, 2018
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 25TH MAGHA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 759 of 2018
CRIME NO. 80/2018 OF BADAGARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT
-----------
PETITIONER(S)/3RD ACCUSED :
ABDUL LATHEEF,
AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SOOPPY,
KAYALOMADATHIL HOUSE, PERUMCHOOL,
POOKKOTTUMPADAM.P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.SAMSUDIN
SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031,
(IN CRIME NO. 80/2018 OF BADAGARA POLICE STATION IN
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT).
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ANAS.K.A
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J.
--------------------------------------
B.A.No.759 of 2018
--------------------------------
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2018
ORDER
1.This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2.The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in Crime No.80 of 2018 of the Badagara Police Station, registered alleging offence punishable under Sections 489A, 489C and 489D read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3.Based on a tip off that the 1st accused was dealing with counterfeit currency notes, he was intercepted by the Station House officer, Badagara Police Station. 24 counterfeit currency notes of Rs.2000/- denomination and two counterfeit notes of Rs.500/- denomination were seized from his possession. Based on the disclosure made by the 1 st accused, another cache of fake currency notes were seized. He is alleged to have disclosed that a house was rented out at Wayanad and the notes were being printed there with the active assistance and aid of accused Nos. 2 and 3. The 2 nd B.A.No.759 of 2018 2 accused is a graphic designer and the petitioner herein, who has been arrayed as he 3rd accused, is his friend.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been arrested and they are now in judicial custody. The petitioner has nothing to do with the arrested accused and he has been implicated on a mistaken premise.
5.The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the petitioner's role has been clearly identified during the investigation. The petitioner had worked with the accused Nos. 1 and 2 abroad and it was the petitioner who had procured the necessary equipments for counterfeiting the notes. The investigation is in the early stages and the learned Public Prosecutor prays for rejection of the petition.
6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the case diary.
7.Having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the materials in support thereof, the role attributed to the petitioner and attendant facts, I am satisfied that this is not B.A.No.759 of 2018 3 a fit case for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under section 438 of the Code. Prime facie, there appears to be materials against the petitioner and in that view of the matter, I find no reason to grant the relief as prayed for. This petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE IAP //True Copy\\ P.A to Judge