Kerala High Court
Shyamala vs The Station House Officer on 27 November, 2013
Author: K. Ramakrishnan
Bench: K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2014/13TH ASHADHA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 3605 of 2014
----------------------------------
CRL.M.P.NO.1858/2014 IN CRL.M.C.NO.1511/2013 OF SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY
CRIME NO. 1465/2013 OF THALASSERY POLICE STATION , KANNUR
----------------
PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 :
----------------------------------------------
SHYAMALA, AGED 50 YEARS,
W/O.LATE VENUGOPAL, VENUNADAM, AMBILATTIL,
KOTANCHERI P.O., PURAMERI (VIA),
KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 503.
BY ADV. SRI.U.P.BALAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANTS :
----------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THALASSERY POLICE STATION,
THALASSERY P.O., PIN - 670 101.
2. THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 04-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
Crl.MC.No. 3605 of 2014
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNESURE 1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.1511/2013 OF
HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY, DATED 27.11.2013.
ANNEXURE 2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.659/2014 OF
HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY, DATED 28.05.2014.
ANNEXURE 3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT FROM THE NADAPURAM POLICE STATION
DATED 05.06.2014.
ANNEXURE 4 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.-1858/2014 IN
CRL.M.C.NO.1511/2013 BY THE HON'BLE SESSIONS COURT,
THALASSERY DATED 29.05.2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Criminal M.C. No.3605 of 2014
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2014
O R D E R
This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the first accused in Crime No. No.1465/2013 of Thalassery police station, challenging the order, cancelling her anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge in that case under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the 'Code').
2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner was arrayed as first accused in Crime No. No.1465/2013 of Thalassery police station, alleging offences under Section 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that on 30.09.2013 at about 11.00 a.m., while she was working as an office attender in the Local Fund Audit Department at Thiruvangad, she had availed a loan from Urban Bank, Thalassery, for her son, with a salary certificate of hers by forging the signature of the Local Crl.M.C.No. 3605/ 2014 2 Fund Audit Officer and thereby she had committed the above said offences along with her son. Apprehending arrest, she filed Crl.M.C.1511/2013 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery, for anticipatory bail and that was granted by the court with certain conditions inter-alia that, she should not involve in any offence during the bail period. Later another crime was registered as Crime No.510/2014 by the first respondent alleging same offence stating that similar certificate was produced before the K.S.F.E., Orkkatteri Brnach, for getting loan, for the same son. The investigating officer filed Crl.M.P.1858/2014 in Crl.M.C.1511/2013 to cancel the bail, as she had involved similar offence. Learned Sessions Judge by Annexure-3 impugned order allowed the application and cancelled the anticipatory bail granted, which is being challenged by the petitioner before this court.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Public Prosecutor.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted Crl.M.C.No. 3605/ 2014 3 that, she is innocent in both the cases and all these things were done by her son and she is not responsible for the same. In fact though there is other crimes mentioned, she got information from those police station involving Right to Information Act, that no such crimes were registered there. So the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in cancelling the bail.
5. The application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, on the ground that she had violated the bail conditions and so the lower court was perfectly justified in cancelling the bail.
6. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in Crime No.1465/2013 of Thalassery police station, alleging offences under Section 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code along with her son, for using a forged salary certificate of hers for getting a loan for her son and she filed Crl.M.C.1511/2013 for anticipatory bail and the learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail as per Annexure-1 order with conditions inter-alia that Crl.M.C.No. 3605/ 2014 4 she shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. It is also an admitted fact that, after the bail was granted to her, another crime was registered as Crime No.510/2014 of Thalassery police station, alleging that, subsequent to the registration of earlier crime, similar forged salary certificate of the petitioner was produced before another institution for getting loan for her son. According to the petitioner, it was not done by her, but it was done at the instance of her son. But however, it is the matter for investigation. The fact that her forged salary certificate was produced for the purpose of getting loan, after she was granted anticipatory bail in an earlier crime of similar nature, especially when a condition was imposed by the learned Sessions Judge that, she should not involve in any crime or do anything prejudicial to the conduct of investigation, will amount to violation of the condition of the bail. It is settled law that, granting bail and cancellation of bail are standing in different footings and court must be always slow in cancellation of bail. Only in Crl.M.C.No. 3605/ 2014 5 extreme circumstances, the bail once granted can be cancelled. But when a condition imposed by the court below for granting anticipatory bail, has been violated and similar offence has been committed, then it cannot be said that, it is an act done by the accused without any intention for the time being, as to whether she is responsible or not responsible or the matter to be considered at the time of trial. So prima-facie it appears that, she had violated the conditions wilfully and so the Sessions Judge was perfectly justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail already granted.
So, I do not find any reason to interfere with that order. However, at the time of disposing the petition, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner in Crime No.510/2014 was dismissed by the Sessions Court and also by this court and while dismissing the application, this court directed the petitioner to surrender before the court on 07.07.2014 and if she surrenders and moves for bail in both these applications, learned magistrate may be directed Crl.M.C.No. 3605/ 2014 6 to dispose of the bail applications in accordance with law, on the same day itself. While dismissing the petition, when the petitioner surrenders and moves for bail in Crime No.510/2014, then the learned magistrate is directed to consider and dispose of the bail application in this case also, on the date of filing of the application itself, after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor of that court, in accordance with law.
With the above observation and direction, the criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of. Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned court, immediately.
Handover the copy of the order to the counsel for the petitioner, so as to enable him to produce the same before that court.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE // True Copy // P.A. to Judge ss