IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 6534 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.157/2009 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD PETITIONER (S): ACCUSED NO.6 ---------------------------------------------- MOIDEEN,S/O.ABBAS MUSLIAR,PAIKA PALADUKKA HOUSE,NEKKARAJA P.O, CHERKALA,KASARGODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,HOSDURG POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.6534 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.6 in Crime No.157 of 2009 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: Accused Nos.1 and 2 stood as sureties for accused No.3 in Crime No.48 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Hosdurg. Revenue receipts were produced by the sureties to prove their solvency. As per the order passed by the Magistrate, the genuineness of the tax receipts were verified. It was found that the tax receipts were forged. The petitioner and other accused persons are also involved in the offence. Prima facie, there are materials to indicate the complicity of the petitioner in committing the offence. BA No.6534/2009 2 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations and the complicity of the petitioner in the offence, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl