IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2010 / 9TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 473 of 2010() ---------------------------- CRIME NO.863/2009 OF EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- MANOJ KUMAR.S., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.SREEKUMAR, NERRWA-77, NETHAJI ROAD, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.863 OF 2009 OF EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR). PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.473 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 30th June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner applied for a loan to the State Bank of India. At the time of application of loan, he produced certain documents including his driving licence, purported to be attested by one Medical Officer and various other documents. Those were forged and used as genuine and loan was sanctioned. Thereafter, Rs.7 lakhs were also given to petitioner as loan. A Demand Draft was handed over for the purpose of purchase of a Maruti SX4 car, but instead of buying the said car, he purchased two cars of other models (Maruti Alto and Zen Estilo), without noting the hypothecation. Subsequently, the cars were sold also. On verification, it was understood that all the documents which were produced for obtaining the loan were forged. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged. The BA NO. 473/10 2 officials of the Bank verified all the documents and then only the loan was sanctioned. It is also submitted that it is not possible for petitioner to endorse the hypothecation, but it is for the dealer to do it. It is also pointed out that the Demand Draft was not handed over to petitioner by the Bank, but it was sent to the dealer. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the documents produced by petitioner are all forged and hence custodial interrogation of petitioner is required, to ascertain in what manner, the forgery is committed. The crime was registered as early as on 1.11.2009 and more than 8 months have elapsed. Petitioner has not surrendered to law. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that considering the nature of investigation required and the serious nature of the allegations made, petitioner's custodial interrogation will be required for ascertaining the manner in which forgery is committed. The F.I.R. Is lodged as early as on 1.11.2009 and petitioner has not been available for interrogation. If any further delay is caused, it is likely that the investigation will be adversely affected. Hence, the following order is passed: BA NO. 473/10 3 (1) Petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. (2) No further application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since there is already inordinate delay and failure of petitioner to surrender for investigation will adversely affect the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs