IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5648 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.715/2009 OF KALADY POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT) PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- SHAJU,AGED 38,S/O.SASIDHARAN, KAMBILIKOTTU LANE,MUSALIAR NAGAR,KILIKOLLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.B.S.SIVAJI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, KALADY POLICE STATION, KALADY,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5648 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.715/2009 of Kalady Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 406, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The de facto complainant and his friend Sumesh got acquaintance with the first accused. The first accused offered to provide visa to the de facto complainant and his friend Sumesh, on payment of Rs.85,000/- each. The first accused also stated that air tickets were also arranged and the money for the air tickets was also collected. The friend of Sumesh, who was working in a gulf country made enquiries and informed Sumesh that the company in which visa is stated to have been issued had B.A. No. 5648 of 2009 2 not issued any such visa and that the de facto complainant and Sumesh would not be able to go abroad on the basis of the visas handed over to them by the first accused. The de facto complainant and Sumesh decided not to go to gulf and they wanted to cancel their air tickets. When they tried to cancel the air tickets, it was revealed that the air tickets were forged ones. The de facto complainant reported the matter to the police and the crime was registered. 4. During investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner had provided the fake air tickets to the de facto complainant and Sumesh. The petitioner is running a Travel agency. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence and that there is no foundation for making such allegation against him. On a perusal of the Case Diary file, I am not inclined to accept the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Prima facie, there are materials to indicate that the petitioner had provided the air tickets. B.A. No. 5648 of 2009 3 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required during investigation. If Anticipatory Bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln