KUMARI THARSHIKA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No:615/2012 of Valiyathura Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. The offences alleged are under section 419 r/w 34 of IPC and sections 12(1)(b) and (d) of Passports Act, 1967. The petitioner has been in custody since 23.05.2012. Hence, the petitioner claims regular bail.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Sri Lankan National. She was the holder of Swedish Passport No:80967177 issued to her on 16.04.2010 from Polismyundigheten I sodermanlands Lan. She arrived at 3.30 a.m. on 22.05.2012 by Emirates Flight No:EK 552 from Dubai. It was found that the photograph in the Passport and Visa did not tally with that of the passenger and so she was refused entry to Dubai due to impersonation. The duty officer, Immigration, Thiruvananthapuram, perused the Passport and Visa of the passenger, the petitioner herein, and found that the photograph of the person found in the passport was different from that of the petitioner. It could be gathered that her elder brother was in Norway and she wanted to go to Sweden. As per her request, her brother had arranged the Swedish Passport with the help of an agent Sudarasanan at Colombo, Sri Lanka. It is alleged that the petitioner's brother had paid Rs.20 lakh to the agent for that Passport. On 06.05.2012, as per the direction of the agent, the petitioner came to Chennai by Air India flight. It seems, she was also having a Sri Lankan Passport and it was with that Passport, immigration clearance was had at Sri Lankan Airport. On 20.05.2012 she left for Thiruvananthapuram by Air India flight. She stayed in a hotel till 21.05.2012. Thereafter, she went to Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, collected her boarding pass and boarded Emirates flight. When she reached Dubai, immigration authorities got suspicion about the photograph in the Passport and so she was deported.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per section 3(2)(f) of the Foreigners Act, 1946, an order can be passed to the effect that the foreigner shall enter into a bond with or without sureties for the due observance of, or as an alternative to the enforcement of, any or all prescribed or specified restrictions or conditions. But the learned Public Prosecutor submits that, that is the order to be passed by the Central Government as can be seen from section 3(1) of the Act and it does not pertain to a case where the accused has committed offence and is in judicial custody pertaining to that case. It may be possible for the petitioner, through her near relatives, to approach the Sri Lankan Embassy in India for better assistance so as to secure travel document in lieu of the Passport and the Visa endorsement so as to enable her to stay in India without offending the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946.