IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3570 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.214/2010 OF KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR. (S): ACCUSED --------------------------- KAMARUDHEEN PUTHIYANDI, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 29 YEARS PUTHIYANDI HOUSE, P.O. THAYYIL, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANNUR CITY POLICE STATION, KANNUR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3570 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 29th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 417, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a passport was issued to petitioner, where there was no endorsement in respect of immigration clearance. Such endorsement (in respect of immigration clearance) will be given only if the person passes SSLC. Petitioner had not passed SSLC to get the clearance. But his passport was submitted along with a forged relevant page of SSLC book for getting such clearance. The document was sent to the school for confirmation and it was found that the document was forged. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. He only gave the passport to the travel agency and he is not aware of any forgery committed. It is also pointed out that the same allegations would constitute offences under the Passport Act, which are bailable. But, now the crime is registered under various offences under the BA NO. 3570/10 2 Indian Penal Code, which are non-bailable. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner's interrogation is necessary to find out the details and the manner in which the forgery is committed. It was for the benefit of petitioner that an endorsement of clearance is sought to be procured by producing a forged document. Petitioner cannot wriggle out of the responsibility stating that travel agents have committed some forgery etc. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that there is an allegation of forgery committed by petitioner for the purpose of procuring the relevant endorsement in the passport. In order to ascertain the manner in which the offence is committed, petitioner's interrogation will be necessary. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Even if some bailable offences under the Passport Act are involved, that is not a reason to say that offence of forgery is not prima facie involved in this case. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs