IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5010 of 2009() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.852/2006 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- MAJOR SUSHIL GOEL (RETD) AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. S.P.GOEL DIRECTOR OF PCTI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, DELHI, RESIDING AT KD-246,PITAM PURA, DELHI 110 034. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KASARGOD POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. M.S. BREEZ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 5010 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the second accused in Crime No.852/2006 of Kasaragod Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The crime was registered on the basis of the letter dated 2/12/2006 issued by the District T.B. Officer, Kasaragod to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kasaragod. In the letter, it is stated that for the purpose of the Revised National T.B. Control Programme, one Manoj M.B was appointed as Senior Treatment Organiser on contract basis, after conducting an interview. The essential qualification for the post was a Degree. Manoj had produced a degree certificate issued by Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research Deemed University. The T.B. Officer received information that the degree certificate produced by Manoj was not a genuine B.A. No.5010/2009 2 one. The T.B. Officer wrote to the University. The University stated that it was not conducting B.Com course at all and that the degree certificate was not a genuine one. 4. Manoj is the first accused in the case. The allegation is that the petitioner was responsible for issuing the forged degree certificate to Manoj, the first accused. 5. The case of the petitioner is that he is a service provider. As per the terms of the memorandum of understanding executed between Bharath Institute of Higher Education and Research Deemed University and himself, the concern run by him, namely, PCTI Educational Society, used to provide a venue for conducting examinations and arrange study centres for the purpose of the University. It is also stated that study materials to the students were being supplied by PCTI Educational Society through its centres. 6. Investigation revealed that the petitioner had issued several such forged certificates in the name of the University. The stand taken by the University is that the University was not conducting any course for B.Com and that they had not issued B.A. No.5010/2009 3 certificates like the one produced by Manoj. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material to connect the petitioner with the offence. The degree certificate is signed by the responsible persons of the University. Unless it is established that those signatures are forged, the petitioner cannot be implicated in the case. 8. I have gone through the Case Diary. Prima facie, I am of the view that there are materials to connect the petitioner with the offence. The investigation is going on. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. The University had made their stand clear that no course for B.Com was being conducted by the University and that there was no occasion for the University to issue certificate like the one which was produced by Manoj before the T.B. Officer. Similar allegations are levelled against the petitioner that he had provided such fabricated certificates to several other persons. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required during investigation. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of B.A. No.5010/2009 4 the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE scm