In Criminal Courts thousands of Bail Applications would be
dealt with and disposed of. The accused would be released on bail
either on the basis of the affidavits filed by the sureties or on production
of revenue receipts, electoral identity cards, title deeds or solvency
certificates by the sureties. It would not be proper to verify the
genuineness or otherwise of all the documents before issuing copy of
the order in the Bail Application or before releasing the accused from
judicial custody. The urgency of the situation would warrant immediate
release of the accused. The Courts would normally rely on the
documents produced by the sureties. If the sureties produce forged
documents and get release of the accused, the Criminal Courts would
not be in a position to enforce the attendance of the accused. Even the
sureties cannot be proceeded against since in some of the cases the
details furnished regarding sureties may be bogus. The proceedings in
Bail Applications are taken and finalized on a mutual trust and
confidence. If such trust and confidence is found out of place, it would
affect the chances of getting bail urgently by other deserving accused.
The practice of producing forged documents in Courts and getting
release of the accused on the basis of such forged documents of the
sureties should be curbed at any cost. If such cases are detected, a
very strict approach is required, even in the matter of granting bail to the
accused against whom allegation is levelled that they produced forged
documents as sureties in another case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5668 of 2011()
RAJAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, V STATE OF KERALA,
MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :19/07/2011
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.1457 of 2010 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections
465, 466, 471, 472, 473 and 475 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioners were arrested on 19.5.2011 and they were
remanded to judicial custody. Their application for bail was dismissed by
this Court in B.A.No.4752 of 2011 on 23.6.2011. The learned single
Judge who dismissed the Bail Application held that if the petitioners were
released on bail, they would definitely influence and intimidate the
prosecution witnesses. It was also held it was likely that the petitioners
would make themselves scarce and flee from justice.
4. The prosecution case against the petitioners is that they stood
as sureties for the accused in C.C.No.532 of 2010 on the file of the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Chalakkudy and got
the accused therein released on bail. For the purpose of furnishing
security, the petitioners produced revenue receipts purportedly issued by
two Village Offices. They also produced electoral identity cards before
the Court to prove their identity. On verification by the learned
Magistrate, it was found that the revenue receipts and the electoral
identity cards were forged and fabricated ones. On a complaint made by
the Sheristadar of the Court, Crime No.1457 of 2010 was registered.
The petitioners were arrested. As stated earlier, their Bail Application
was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as well as by this Court. Even
after the dismissal of B.A.No.4752 of 2011, it would appear that the
petitioners moved for bail before the trial court and that application was
dismissed on 6.7.2011 by the learned Magistrate.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the
investigation, charge sheet was filed on 20.5.2011.
6. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood
of the petitioners trying to influence the prosecution witnesses and to
tamper with the evidence. As held in B.A.No.4752 of 2011, there is also
a chance of the petitioners making themselves scarce. There is also a
likelihood that if the petitioners are released on bail, another set of
forged documents would be produced to get them released on bail. For
the aforesaid reasons, the prayer for bail in the Bail Application is
rejected.
7. In Criminal Courts thousands of Bail Applications would be
dealt with and disposed of. The accused would be released on bail
either on the basis of the affidavits filed by the sureties or on production
of revenue receipts, electoral identity cards, title deeds or solvency
certificates by the sureties. It would not be proper to verify the
genuineness or otherwise of all the documents before issuing copy of
the order in the Bail Application or before releasing the accused from
judicial custody. The urgency of the situation would warrant immediate
release of the accused. The Courts would normally rely on the
documents produced by the sureties. If the sureties produce forged
documents and get release of the accused, the Criminal Courts would
not be in a position to enforce the attendance of the accused. Even the
sureties cannot be proceeded against since in some of the cases the
details furnished regarding sureties may be bogus. The proceedings in
Bail Applications are taken and finalized on a mutual trust and
confidence. If such trust and confidence is found out of place, it would
affect the chances of getting bail urgently by other deserving accused.
The practice of producing forged documents in Courts and getting
release of the accused on the basis of such forged documents of the
sureties should be curbed at any cost. If such cases are detected, a
very strict approach is required, even in the matter of granting bail to the
accused against whom allegation is levelled that they produced forged
documents as sureties in another case.
8. Now the case is ready for trial as the charge sheet has been
filed. The petitioners are in judicial custody. Precedence would be
given to the cases where the accused are in judicial custody. There will
be a direction to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkudy to
expedite the trial of the case arising out Crime No.1457 of 2010,
Chalakkudy Police Station. It is made clear that in case a transfer of the
case to another Court becomes necessary, the direction to expedite the
trial of the case would be applicable to the transferee court as well.
8. It is made clear that the above observations should not be
taken as a finding on the merits of the case against the accused.
The Bail Application is disposed of as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
Print Page
dealt with and disposed of. The accused would be released on bail
either on the basis of the affidavits filed by the sureties or on production
of revenue receipts, electoral identity cards, title deeds or solvency
certificates by the sureties. It would not be proper to verify the
genuineness or otherwise of all the documents before issuing copy of
the order in the Bail Application or before releasing the accused from
judicial custody. The urgency of the situation would warrant immediate
release of the accused. The Courts would normally rely on the
documents produced by the sureties. If the sureties produce forged
documents and get release of the accused, the Criminal Courts would
not be in a position to enforce the attendance of the accused. Even the
sureties cannot be proceeded against since in some of the cases the
details furnished regarding sureties may be bogus. The proceedings in
Bail Applications are taken and finalized on a mutual trust and
confidence. If such trust and confidence is found out of place, it would
affect the chances of getting bail urgently by other deserving accused.
The practice of producing forged documents in Courts and getting
release of the accused on the basis of such forged documents of the
sureties should be curbed at any cost. If such cases are detected, a
very strict approach is required, even in the matter of granting bail to the
accused against whom allegation is levelled that they produced forged
documents as sureties in another case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Bail Appl..No. 5668 of 2011()
RAJAN, S/O.CHELLAPPAN, V STATE OF KERALA,
MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :19/07/2011
This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.1457 of 2010 of Chalakudy Police Station, Thrissur District.
2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections
465, 466, 471, 472, 473 and 475 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The petitioners were arrested on 19.5.2011 and they were
remanded to judicial custody. Their application for bail was dismissed by
this Court in B.A.No.4752 of 2011 on 23.6.2011. The learned single
Judge who dismissed the Bail Application held that if the petitioners were
released on bail, they would definitely influence and intimidate the
prosecution witnesses. It was also held it was likely that the petitioners
would make themselves scarce and flee from justice.
4. The prosecution case against the petitioners is that they stood
as sureties for the accused in C.C.No.532 of 2010 on the file of the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First class, Chalakkudy and got
the accused therein released on bail. For the purpose of furnishing
security, the petitioners produced revenue receipts purportedly issued by
two Village Offices. They also produced electoral identity cards before
the Court to prove their identity. On verification by the learned
Magistrate, it was found that the revenue receipts and the electoral
identity cards were forged and fabricated ones. On a complaint made by
the Sheristadar of the Court, Crime No.1457 of 2010 was registered.
The petitioners were arrested. As stated earlier, their Bail Application
was dismissed by the learned Magistrate as well as by this Court. Even
after the dismissal of B.A.No.4752 of 2011, it would appear that the
petitioners moved for bail before the trial court and that application was
dismissed on 6.7.2011 by the learned Magistrate.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after completing the
investigation, charge sheet was filed on 20.5.2011.
6. If the petitioners are released on bail, there is every likelihood
of the petitioners trying to influence the prosecution witnesses and to
tamper with the evidence. As held in B.A.No.4752 of 2011, there is also
a chance of the petitioners making themselves scarce. There is also a
likelihood that if the petitioners are released on bail, another set of
forged documents would be produced to get them released on bail. For
the aforesaid reasons, the prayer for bail in the Bail Application is
rejected.
7. In Criminal Courts thousands of Bail Applications would be
dealt with and disposed of. The accused would be released on bail
either on the basis of the affidavits filed by the sureties or on production
of revenue receipts, electoral identity cards, title deeds or solvency
certificates by the sureties. It would not be proper to verify the
genuineness or otherwise of all the documents before issuing copy of
the order in the Bail Application or before releasing the accused from
judicial custody. The urgency of the situation would warrant immediate
release of the accused. The Courts would normally rely on the
documents produced by the sureties. If the sureties produce forged
documents and get release of the accused, the Criminal Courts would
not be in a position to enforce the attendance of the accused. Even the
sureties cannot be proceeded against since in some of the cases the
details furnished regarding sureties may be bogus. The proceedings in
Bail Applications are taken and finalized on a mutual trust and
confidence. If such trust and confidence is found out of place, it would
affect the chances of getting bail urgently by other deserving accused.
The practice of producing forged documents in Courts and getting
release of the accused on the basis of such forged documents of the
sureties should be curbed at any cost. If such cases are detected, a
very strict approach is required, even in the matter of granting bail to the
accused against whom allegation is levelled that they produced forged
documents as sureties in another case.
8. Now the case is ready for trial as the charge sheet has been
filed. The petitioners are in judicial custody. Precedence would be
given to the cases where the accused are in judicial custody. There will
be a direction to the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chalakkudy to
expedite the trial of the case arising out Crime No.1457 of 2010,
Chalakkudy Police Station. It is made clear that in case a transfer of the
case to another Court becomes necessary, the direction to expedite the
trial of the case would be applicable to the transferee court as well.
8. It is made clear that the above observations should not be
taken as a finding on the merits of the case against the accused.
The Bail Application is disposed of as above.
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment