IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2011 / 22ND ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 8197 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.631/2010 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 : -------------------------------- ABDUL RASSAQ, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.MEETHEEN, MOLLA HOUSE, MARAMPILLY KARA, MARAMPILLY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA POLICE STATION. 3. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID, ALUVA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A.No.8197 of 2011 --------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.631 of 2010 of Aluva Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 419, 468, 471, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) & (d) of the Passport Act. 3. The prosecution case is the following : The de facto complainant had taken a passport in 1994. He entrusted the passport to accused No.2 for the purpose of getting a visa. Visa was not arranged by accused No.2. He did not return the passport to the de facto complainant. Later, accused No.2 went abroad. Even after his coming back to India, the passport was not returned to the de facto complainant. In 2009, the de facto complainant applied for a fresh passport. He stated in the application that a passport was issued to him on an earlier occasion and that it was not returned by accused No.2 after it BA 8197/11 2 was entrusted to him for getting a visa. Verification was made in the Passport Office. It was revealed that the passport issued in the name of the petitioner was renewed and accused No.1 had got the passport after affixing his photograph in the place of the photograph of the de facto complainant. The prosecution alleged that all the accused conspired together and committed the offence. 4. The offences alleged against the petitioner are very grave in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl