IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6061 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.1790/08 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER: ACCUSED --------------------------- V.A. MPHAMMED SALIM, VANITHA SHOPPING CENTRE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.6061 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th October, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, the petitioner supplied steel utensils in the Margin Free Market as against a bill forged by him, which is purported to be issued by the de facto complainant. This was done to avoid tax. Hence, the de facto complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that there is only one bill involved in the case and actually he has not given such bill. Both the de facto complainant and the petitioner are giving articles to the Margin Free Market and if offence is committed, it will be easily detected. The allegations made are not correct. The petitioner is prepared to abide by any condition imposed by this court. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the de facto complainant is not supplying any article to the same Margin Free Market. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation, since facts, within his exclusive knowledge, will have to be revealed in the investigation. BA.6061/08 2 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the petitioner will be required for custodial interrogation and in a case of this nature, where forgery is committed, it may not be proper to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.