Wednesday, 11 November 2015

Precaution to be taken by Magistrate prior to releasing accused on bail

 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,
                       ...       Respondent

The Hon'ble 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

No comments:

Post a Comment