IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6303 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.277/11 OF MUKKOM POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2 : ---------------------------------- 1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O. KOYAKUTTY, AGED 29 YEARS, PARAKANDIYIL, VALIAPARAMBA, KODUVALLY. 2. ASHRAF, S/O. ABOOBACKER, AGED 30 YEARS, THANNIKANDUNGAL, VALIAPARAMBA, KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.6303 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.277 of 2011 of Mukkom Police Station, Kozhikode District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 20 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. 3. The allegation is that on 27.7.2011, the petitioners removed sand from the Kanchikode yard using forged document and forged cash memo as if they were issued by the Kerala State Minerals Development Corporation Ltd. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted BA 6303/2011 2 that the vehicle was not seized when the sand was being transported. There was a collision between a car and the lorry belonging to the second accused. The dispute was settled. The sand was unloaded. The owner of the car had informed the police before settlement of the case. On getting information, the police came to the spot and asked the whereabouts of the lorry. On finding that the sand was unloaded, the police wanted to see the documents permitting transporting of sand. It is submitted that once the transporting is over, the petitioners are not bound to maintain the pass and therefore, no offence is committed. 5. While disposing of the application for anticipatory bail, it is not feasible to consider on the merits the aforesaid contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners and to arrive at a finding on disputed questions of fact. The learned Government Pleader submitted that apart from the pass, the cash memo allegedly issued by the Kerala State Minerals Development Corporation Ltd. was produced by the petitioners which was found to be forged. It is not a document that should be kept only at the time of transportation of sand. Transportation of BA 6303/2011 3 sand with the forged document was illegal. 6. The allegations levelled against the petitioners are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl