IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3724 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.296/10 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION (S): PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ MOHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.KUNHI MOHAMMED, CHATHERI HOUSE, THALAKKAD, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TIRUR POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V.PRAMOD. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.3724 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 22nd June, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 465, 469 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, documents were forged by petitioner and thereafter, electricity connection was obtained by first accused by producing one such forged document. Thereafter, he applied for possession certificate by producing a document, which was forged by using the office seal of Panchayat and also signature of the Secretary. It was noticed that the document is a forged one and on a complaint made by the Secretary of the Panchayat, crime is registered against first accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. This is a politically motivated case. The first accused had gone to Gulf country and came to India only on 7.3.2010. It is not correct to say that petitioner has, in any manner, forged document, it is submitted. BA NO.3724/10 2 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as per the materials in the case diary, it is the petitioner who had forged documents for and on behalf of the first accused. The first accused was arrested and questioned by the Investigating Officer. Unless petitioner is interrogated, it will not be possible to make an effective investigation into the crime, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides and considering the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that petitioner's interrogation will be required for an effective investigation. Petitioner has not made out any exceptional circumstances to get anticipatory bail. I find no ground to grant the relief. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co- operate with the investigation without any delay. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs