Kerala High Court
Firoz vs S.I. Of Police on 27 February, 2020
Author: V Shircy
Bench: V Shircy
Bail Appl..No.274 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 8TH PHALGUNA, 1941
Bail Appl..No.274 OF 2020
CRIME NO.525/2019 OF Manjeri Police Station , Malappuram
PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED:
FIROZ,
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. MUHAMMED, POOZHIKUTH HOUSE, KARAT, MELAKKAM
P.O., KARUVAMBURAM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA
SMT.A.LOWSY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT /STATE:
S.I. OF POLICE,
MANJERI THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
OTHER PRESENT:
PP SREEJA V
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Bail Appl..No.274 OF 2020 2
ORDER
This application is for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.525 of 2019 of Manjeri Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 124A, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with 20 of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and Section 3 & 6 of Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933.
3. The prosecution allegation is that on 10.11.2019 at about 11.05 a.m a search was conducted by the police officials, Manjeri in a room occupied by the first accused, found conducting a parallel telephone exchange along with the petitioner/second accused by using electronic equipments and devices with the intention to defraud the Government. Apart from electronic devices other materials including more than 90 SIM cards were detected. The illegal activity was causing huge loss to the State. A case was registered against this petitioner and the other accused suo motu and probe was conducted by the investigating agency.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted Bail Appl..No.274 OF 2020 3 that in fact he is running a mobile shop under the name and style, 'Inspire Mobiles' at about 6 k.m away from this so called telephone exchange run by the first accused and he has no connection with the room taken on rent by the first accused. He is running his mobile business for the last so many years. But he apprehends arrest and torture by the police and hence, this application.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the application contending that on investigation it was revealed that this petitioner along with the other accused were attempting to commit anti national activities. So as per the order of the District Police Chief, the investigation was taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Malappuram and on detailed probe it was revealed that the room in the second floor of the building at Payyanad Junction, Manjery Municipality was taken on rent and an illegal telephone exchange with the help of Muhammed Ashraf the co-indictee by using electronic devices with the intention to defraud the government and to gain excessive profits, was conducted by him. Muhammed Ashraf was arrested on 10.11.2019 and he was remanded. Then on further probe it was realized that this petitioner was attempting to sabotage the country's financial sector and commit such other illegal activities. Bail Appl..No.274 OF 2020 4 This petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation of the case. Even in the search conducted in his residential house he could not be traced out. Thereafter though Look Out Circular was initiated against this petitioner, he was not traced out. It is further stated that only on custodial interrogation the real facts could be unearthed.
6. I have perused the records available before me. The materials so far gathered by the investigating agency would show that there are very serious allegations against this petitioner and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is inevitable to unearth the details involved in this case. Even Look Out Circular was issued against him as he was not co-operating with the investigation. Granting of anticipatory bail in a case like this will definitely cause hindrance to the investigating agency in proceeding with the investigation of the case in the right track. Custodial interrogation could be avoided only if the accused cooperates with the investigation. In fact he is absconding from the clutches of law.
7. Considering the entire allegations levelled against this petitioner, I do not think that this is a fit case in which discretion vested on this court can be exercised in favour of the petitioner Bail Appl..No.274 OF 2020 5 as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Considering the gravity of the offence alleged against him, the present stage of investigation and the other facts involved in this case, I think that this petitioner does not deserve a favourable order of getting pre- arrest bail by exercising the discretion of this court. Hence, this petition is dismissed. The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Agency and co-operate with the investigation of the case.
Sd/-
SHIRCY V JUDGE smm