Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940 Bail Appl..No. 501 of 2019 CRIME NO. 2049/2017 OF Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram
PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED: RESHMI, AGED 29 YEARS, W/O. SANTHOSH, KOTTAILKKADY, MITHRIMALA P.O, VAMANAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 610. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN RESPONDENTS/STATE & ANOTHER: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031. 2 DY. S.P., DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. SRI. T. R. RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Bail Appl..No. 501 of 2019 2
ORDER
This application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The applicant herein finds herself arrayed as the 2nd accused
in Crime No.2049 of 2017 of the Valiyathura Police Station, registered on 18.11.2017 under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC and Section 24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. When the crime was initially registered at the instance of the Emigration Officer, International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, the accused were one
Sameer and Mini. Later, Mini was deleted from the array of the accused and the applicant was included in her place.
3. According to the prosecution, on 16.11.2017, the applicant
approached the Departure Emigration Counter for getting clearance to fly to Sharjah. She produced her passport, long term VISA, boarding pass and tickets. She was holding a passport which required emigration clearance. Since it was noticed that she had earlier travelled to Bahrain, she was questioned. She produced a photocopy of a passport bearing No.’M8475523’ in the name of one Santhosh and claimed that the aforesaid Santhosh, was her husband and he was having a valid UAE residence VISA in his name. She also claimed that
Bail Appl..No. 501 of 2019 3 she was on her way for visiting her husband, who is a permanent
resident there. On verification, the copy of the passport, which was produced, was found to be forged. It was issued to one Parayil Abdulla Salim. The officer concluded that the applicant herein was a victim of human trafficking and was defrauded by the accused in the original FIR. Based on his complaint, the Crime was registered as above. Later, it was revealed that the applicant also had a role to play as she was aware that the copy of the passport which was in her possession was forged.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted
that the records would clearly reveal that the applicant herein was, in fact, the victim and not the offender. She is illiterate and unemployed and the travel documents were handed over by the 1 st accused. It is further submitted that the Crime was registered as early as on 18.11.2017 and the entire documents in her possession were seized as is evidenced by Annexure-A1.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor has very strenuously opposed
the prayer and pointed out that her statement before the counter officer would reveal that she was also aware that the copy of the passport in her possession was forged. Bail Appl..No. 501 of 2019 4
6. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone
through the case diary. The travel documents which were in the possession of the applicant, including her passport, were genuine. However, copy of the passport, which was in her possession, was found to be fabricated. The entire documents have been seized and the records would reveal that the applicant herein was a victim. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that her custodial interrogation may not be required for an effective investigation. In the result, this application will stand allowed. The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer within ten days from today and shall undergo interrogation. Thereafter, if she is proposed to be arrested, she shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum. The above order shall be subject to the following conditions:
i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer on all Saturdays between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m., for two months or till final report is filed, whichever is earlier. ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts
to the court or to any police officer. Bail Appl..No. 501 of 2019 5 iii) She shall not commit any similar offence while on bail. In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application for cancellation, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. SD/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE DSV/26.2.19