Shafi Chembarikayil v. State of Kerala and Inspector of Police, Melparamba Police Station, Kasaragod District
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- VIJU ABRAHAM
- Judgment Date
- 2023-06-27
- Court Decision / Holding
- The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions for limited custody, surrender on 03.07.2023, appearance as summoned, cooperation with investigation, bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, and restrictions against tampering with evidence, contacting witnesses, or engaging in further crimes while on bail. The decision cites the Apex Court’s guidance in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another and acknowledges the police’s power to investigate and effect recoveries even while the accused is on bail.
- Final Disposition
- Granted anticipatory bail
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Shafi Chembarikayil
Respondents
- State of Kerala rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala
- Inspector of Police, Melparamba Police Station, Kasaragod District
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • N. Jagath Salish Aravindakshan
Counsels for Respondents
- • Johny Joseph (Public Prosecutor)
Case Synopsis & Summary
This is an anticipatory bail application in Bail Application No. 4228 of 2023, before the Kerala High Court, involving Shafi Chembarikayil, accused in Melparamba Police Station Crime No. 486/2022. The petitioner is charged with offences under Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act, 1967 and Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC, alleging passport forgery and possession of two passports (Z 2922363 and A1773251). The prosecution alleges a long period of alleged passport forgery from 1995 to 2022, with the latest passport (Z 2922363) issued in 2015 after multiple renewals. The petitioner contends falsity of the allegations, claiming a single passport was used for travel; Annexure 1 shows renewal of that passport, and Annexure 2 indicates a Karnataka case where anticipatory bail was granted in a related matter. The defense emphasizes enmity with the defacto complainant, and that there is no concrete evidence that a second passport was in his possession or delivered to him. The Public Prosecutor counters that the second passport’s issuance and renewals point to possible misuse, but admits no passport was recovered at the house. The court evaluates the gravity of charges, prior bail history, and the necessity of limited custody for investigation, ultimately granting anticipatory bail with conditions.
Provisions of Law Cited
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated and subjected to proceedings due to enmity with the defacto complainant. He states that he applied for a passport in 1995 through an agent and has used that passport for international travel; the claim of possessing two passports is false. Annexure 1 shows the passport Z 2922363 was renewed multiple times; Annexure 2 indicates a Karnataka order granting anticipatory bail in a related matter. He argues there is no material showing delivery of a second passport to him, and no travel evidence linked to the additional passport. He notes prior bail rejection on 07.10.2022 in a different matter but emphasizes the investigation has progressed; despite the serious charges, he is prepared to surrender for limited custody, cooperate with investigators, and comply with bail conditions; the absence of flight risk and personal circumstances (education level) are cited in his favor.
Contentions of Respondents
The State counters that the accusation concerns possession of two Indian passports and potential forgery, with a search yielding no passport at the residence but establishing the chronology of two passport numbers (A1773251 and Z 2922363) eventually linked to renewals. It is argued that the passport numbers show a pattern of renewal through consular channels, suggesting misuse, and that there is a possibility of travel or tampering with witnesses if bail is granted. While a Karnataka court granted anticipatory bail in a related case, this does not undermine the seriousness of the present allegations. The prosecution urges caution and suggests stringent bail conditions to ensure cooperation and non-interference with investigations and witnesses.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sushila Aggarwal and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another | 2020 (1) KHC 663 | Positive | Cited to support that police may investigate and effect recoveries even when the accused is on bail; used as authority for bail conditions and investigation power. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Shafi Chembarikayil v. State of Kerala and Inspector of Police, Melparamba Police Station, Kasaragod District and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.