IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1309 of 2010(A) ------------------------------------------ CRIME NO.251/2010 OF ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MUHAMMED,AGED 40 YEARS, 'JASEELA MANZIL',P.O.MANJERI, ATHIKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAKIR.K.H. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. TEKCHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 1309 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 O R D E R When the Bail Application came up for hearing on 26.03.2010, the following order was passed: “This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.251 of 2010 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1 to 6 cheated the de facto complainant and received money from him offering forged visa. The de facto complainant was also told that other visas are also available for adequate consideration. The de facto complainant, who had paid huge amounts to accused No.1, informed the police, on entertaining a reasonable apprehension that there was some foul play in the offer made by accused No.1. The police arrested accused Nos.1 to 6 and recovered the visas which were found to be forged. Accused No.3 in his disclosure statement pointed out that the visas were prepared in the DTP Centre run by the petitioner, accused No.7. The third accused also stated that accused No.7 was not aware of the forgery having been committed. The learned counsel for the B.A. No. 1309 / 2010 2 petitioner submitted that the petitioner is running a photostat shop and DTP Centre in Mavoor Road, Kozhikode for the last ten years and he ekes out his livelihood from the income derived from the business in the shop. He is not involved in any offence at any point of time. 4. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that before disposing of the Bail Application, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer at 2 P.M. on 29.3.2010 and at 9 A.M. on 30.3.2010. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the order before the investigating officer. Post on 5.4.2010. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner will not be arrested until further orders in connection with Crime No.251 of 2010 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station.” 2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioner has complied with the direction contained in the order dated 26.03.2010. 3. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and other circumstances, I am of B.A. No. 1309 / 2010 3 the view that anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner. There will be a direction that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, the officer in charge of the police station shall release him on bail on his executing bond for Rs. 15,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer concerned, subject to the following conditions: A) The petitioner shall report before the investigating officer between 1 P.M and 4 P.M. on alternate Mondays, till the final report is filed or until further orders; B) The petitioner shall appear before the investigating officer for interrogation as and when required; C) The petitioner shall not try to influence the prosecution witnesses or tamper with the evidence. D) The petitioner shall not commit any offence or indulge in any prejudicial activity while on bail. E) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the bail shall be liable to be cancelled. The Bail Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln