IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1072 of 2010() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.17/2010 OF THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- NISHANTH. C., AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, NISHA NIVAS, CHERPULASSERY, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, THRITHALA POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S.U. NAZAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION H AVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO. 1432 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ----------------------------------------------- B.A.NO.1072 & 1432 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 29th March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in crime No.17/2010 of Thrithala police station. Second accused filed B.A.1072/2010 for anticipatory bail and third accused B.A.1432/2010 for the same relief. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public prosecutor were heard. 3. Argument of the learned counsel is that petitioners have nothing to do with the forgery committed in respect of the pass for transportation of river sand and in such circumstances, they are to be granted anticipatory bail. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in BA 1072 & 1432/10 2 B.A.1072/2010 submitted that petitioner is only the owner of the vehicle and he entrusted the vehicle to the driver in the morning and in such circumstances, he cannot be made liable for the forgery. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that for proper investigation of the case custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary as forged passes were created by the accused in furtherance of their common intention. It is submitted that both the accused are parties to the forgery and in such circumstances, they are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. 4. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor, I find this not a fit case to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail, as custodial BA 1072 & 1432/10 3 interrogation of the petitioners may be necessary, in view of seriousness of the case. Petitioners are at liberty to surrender before learned Magistrate or the investigating officer. Petitions are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.