IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4382 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.4294/2010 of J.M.F.C.-II,KOTTARAKKARA CRIME NO. 966/2010 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- BEENA, AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.SARASWATHY, T.C.28/392, BHAJANA MADAM LANE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (FROM PUTHUVAL PUTHENVEETTIL, AYIROOPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SRI. K.S.SIVAKUMAR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J ---------------------- B.A.No.4382 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 466, 468, 471 and 34 IPC and section 12(b) of Passport Act. According to prosecution, first and second accused are associates. First accused lost his passport from abroad. He approached second accused for arranging another passport. Second accused approached third accused who is a travel agent. Fourth accused is an employee in the travel agency. Fifth and sixth accused forged certain documents for using the same as genuine and handed over the same to third accused. Fourth accused on knowing that documents are forged, prepared an application incorporating false details for the purpose of issuance of passport. In respect of this transaction, second accused had paid Rs.25,000/- to third accused. Passport was issued in the name of first accused based on forged documents and all accused in furtherance of common intention committed the offences, stated above. B.A. No.4382/10 2 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a woman, who is only an employee of third accused. She has no role in the alleged forgery. In her capacity as an employee, she only filled up the application form which was handed over to her with certain documents. There is no allegation that she had taken any money or gratification from any person in the transaction. There is no case that petitioner herself forged the relevant documents in this case. Petitioner was arrested on 8.7.2010 and she was in custody for the past 15 days. 4. Learned public prosecutor submitted that main allegations are against 3rd, 5th and 6th accused. He has no objection in extending benefit of proviso to Sec.437 Cr.P.C. to petitioner, taking into account her limited role in the offence. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted to petitioner on conditions. Hence the following order is passed: Petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on following conditions: B.A. No.4382/10 3 1) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer as and when directed. 2) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with evidence. 3) In case petitioner is involved in other crime of similar nature, the bail is liable to be cancelled. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou.