In a significant ruling concerning a passport fraud case, the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge in Bengaluru City has granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner, Anif @ Mohammed Aneesh Basha, who was arrayed as Accused No. 18 despite his name not appearing in the original First Information Report (FIR) or the initial complaint. The order, delivered on August 30, 2023, by Judge Sri. Sabappa, emphasizes the principle of parity and the lack of concrete evidence at this preliminary stage to establish the petitioner’s active involvement in the alleged crimes.

The case, registered as Crime No. 170/2022 by the Basavanagudi Police Station, involves serious offences under Sections 109, 34, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 12(1) and 12(2) of the Passport Act, 1967. These sections deal with abetment, common intention, cheating by personation, cheating, forgery, forgery for the purpose of cheating, and using a genuine document known to be forged, alongside specific violations of the Passport Act.

The Allegations and the Petitioner’s Stance

The prosecution’s case stems from an incident where a police constable, while clearing passport seva data in 2020, investigated the credentials of one ‘Mohammed Karim @ Mohammed Rashid.’ The constable allegedly found no criminal antecedents and uploaded a clearance report. Later, the Pension Mohalla police approached the Basavanagudi police with a photograph, revealing that the person who received the clearance, whose name was identified as ‘Sadiq Pasha’ in the subsequent investigation, possessed a criminal record and had allegedly obtained a passport by suppressing this fact with the help of others, including Ameen Sait, Naval, and Hyder. A complaint was subsequently lodged.

The petitioner, Anif @ Mohammed Aneesh Basha, through his counsel Sri. Ramakrishana R.M., argued that his name was conspicuously absent from the initial complaint and the FIR, with the alleged offence occurring in 2020 and no prior calls for investigation being made to him. He contended that his implication as Accused No. 18 only surfaced in the remand application, suggesting he was being falsely implicated. The petitioner asserted his innocence, lack of involvement in the alleged offences, and his status as a permanent resident of Udupi District, assuring the court of his readiness to abide by any imposed conditions.

Emphasis on Parity and Bail as a Rule

Crucially, the defense highlighted that other co-accused persons in the same case were already enlarged on bail by the same court in previous Criminal Miscellaneous petitions (Crl.Misc.10941/2022, 10898/2022, and 10899/2022). This became the cornerstone of the petitioner’s request, seeking bail on the grounds of parity.

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the offences and expressing fears that the petitioner might abscond, commit similar offences, or tamper with prosecution witnesses if released.

Upon hearing both sides and scrutinizing the records, the Court proceeded to analyze the merits of the anticipatory bail application. Judge Sabappa noted that while the case was registered against Sadiq Pasha and others, the petitioner’s name was indeed missing from the complaint and FIR, appearing only later in the remand application as Accused No. 18.

Court’s Finding and Conditions for Release

In its reasoning, the Court affirmed that the investigating police had already arrested and interrogated the main accused, conducted mahazars, and recovered articles, suggesting that a substantial part of the investigation had been completed. Acknowledging the precedent set by the release of co-accused Nos. 1 to 5 and others on bail, the Court concurred with the petitioner’s plea for parity.

The Court stated, “Based on the documents relied by the petitioner, one thing is clear at this stage it is not possible to ascertain that petitioner has actively participated in the crime, it requires trial. Thereby present petitioner is also standing on the same footing. The other accused are already enlarged on bail and thereby petitioner is also entitled for bail.”

The Judge further invoked the fundamental legal principle that “bail is a rule, jail is exception,” concluding that imposing stringent conditions would adequately safeguard the prosecution’s concerns while preventing “humiliation and hardship” to the petitioner.

Consequently, the bail petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was allowed. Anif @ Mohammed Aneesh Basha was ordered to be released on anticipatory bail upon his arrest in Cr. No. 170/2022, provided he executes a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.

The anticipatory bail is subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. The petitioner must appear before the trial court within 15 days from the date of the order.
2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
3. He must cooperate with the investigation and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
4. He shall not abscond from his ordinary residence and must furnish his address proof to the concerned police.
5. He shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. He shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission.

The order explicitly grants liberty to the Investigating Officer (IO) to move for the cancellation of bail if any of these conditions are violated. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to individual liberty, especially when the initial evidence against an accused is not direct or overwhelming, and co-accused persons facing similar charges have already been granted bail.