IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 1131 of 2010() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.40/2010 OF KOLATHUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DIST. (S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 ------------------------------------------- BASHEER, S/O.KUNHI MOHAMMED, MANDAKAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PALACHODU, KOLATHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLATHUR POLICE STATION - THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEK CHAND. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------------------------- Bail Application No.1131 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 1st July, 2010. O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, a passport was issued to first accused. Thereafter, in order to obtain the endorsement relating to emigration clearance, the passport was submitted along with a petition. Certain documents were also produced before the Passport Officer. For getting the endorsement, the applicant should pass SSLC, but, the first accused had not passed SSLC. The certificates produced before the Passport Officer revealed that he had passed SSLC. On getting suspicion, the documents were sent for verification and the copy of the SSLC certificate produced was found to be forged. It contained the number which relates to another person. On a complaint made by the Passport officer through the D.G.P., the crime was registered. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He has BA NO. 1131/10 2 no connection with any travel agency. It is only on the basis of a statement given by first accused that petitioner is implicated in the offence. The first accused stated that the documents were handed over to petitioner and that first accused is not guilty of forging any document etc. It is also pointed out that the travel agency cannot make any application for getting the required endorsement in the passport. The applicant himself will have to submit the application and the endorsement is made only after verification of the identity of the applicant. 4. This petition is strongly opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has no case that the application was submitted by a travel agent or by petitioner. The case is that the documents were forged by petitioner and first accused, in furtherance of common intention. Petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain how he had forged the document. Hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that petitioner is implicated because of sufficient materials in the case diary indicating that petitioner forged the document along with first BA NO. 1131/10 3 accused. Unless he is subjected to custodial interrogation, it may not be possible to find out his role in the forgery and the manner in which the forgery is committed. This is especially so, since as per the information received by the police, petitioner has a specific role in forgery but he flatly denies the same. In the above circumstances, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender before police without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. tgs