IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 6829 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.344/CR/5111/2005 OF THE CBCID HQ, TRIVANDRUM PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SEBASTIAN THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS, THEKKINKATTIL, 12TH MILE, ARAKKULAM, PIN - 685591 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 6829 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd December, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, petitioner, who is third accused, who is a Motor Vehicle Inspector, with criminal intention did not verify the forgery committed in Form no.21 notice, wherein the vehicle was described as LCV (light commercial vehicle), instead of light goods vehicle (LGV). The vehicle belonging to first accused was produced for registration with certain documents, which are forged and third accused recommended registration of the vehicle and number was also assigned. Thereby he committed offence in furtherance of a common intention with other accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Motor Vehicle Inspector and on 3.6.2003, first accused produced a vehicle for registration. Several vehicles are being brought to the RTO office on every day and it is impossible to check each and every detail then and there, in the various documents produced and therefore, the practice is to check only the chassis number and the engine number and then recommend for registration of the vehicle, BA.6829/08 2 later, registration will be allowed only after detailed verification of all the documents produced by the party. 4. On such subsequent verification, it was found out by petitioner himself that Form no.22 is not produced by first accused and that some documents produced are manipulated also. Therefore, this fact was reported by the petitioner himself to higher officials on 13.6.2003. It was found that the buyer of the vehicle was one Mohammed, but the registration sought for is in the name of first accused, which is not permissible. Later, some complaints were received in the Vigilance Department and a raid was conducted in the RTO office on 5.6.2004 and several irregularities were noted. A crime was registered against first accused on 26.7.2005. Later, in the course of investigation, petitioner was also included as third accused in the crime. 5. It is strongly contended that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made and his innocence will be revealed from the Vigilance enquiry report. It is specifically mentioned therein that petitioner committed only dereliction of duty and negligence, since it was the duty of petitioner to verify all the documents but he failed to do so, it is submitted. As per the report, it is mentioned as follows: BA.6829/08 3 “The M.V.I Sri.Sebastian Thomas who verified the records and inspected the vehicle before assigning the registration number on 3.6.2003, he ought to have rejected the application on the ground of non-production of Form 22 and on the discrepancy on the cash receipt regarding the name Mohammed instead of the application Janardhanan P.K. Similarly the discrepancy in the Form 21 regarding the class of vehicle to “L.G.V” and the type of body to be “Bus Chassis” was also left unnoticed by him. Hence the M.V.I Sri.Sebastian Thomas has committed grave dereliction of duty showing gross negligence.” 6. It is submitted that from the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch itself it is clear that the act committed by petitioner is only gross negligence and dereliction of duty, but according to learned counsel for petitioner, the allegations will fall short of commission of an offence. From the above facts it is clear that petitioner has no intention to commit any offence, since he himself is the person, who pointed out the manipulations for the first time within ten days of filing of the application, it is submitted. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is a Motor Vehicle Inspector and he could have easily found out on finding the vehicle itself that the vehicle is a light goods vehicle BA.6829/08 4 (LGV), but he has acted upon on a Form 21 notice, wherein it was falsely recorded as light commercial vehicle (LCV). Petitioner has, therefore, acted in furtherance of a common intention with other accused to commit the offence, as an official attached to the RTO office, it is submitted. On hearing both sides and on going through the documents produced, particularly, Annexure-II, which is the report of the Dy.S.P to the Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, I find that it is only just and proper that anticipatory bail can be granted. Petitioner appears to have a strong case to advance in respect of mens rea etc., and in case anticipatory bail is refused, it is likely that he will be arrested and detained in custody in which event he will suffer great injustice, if ultimately it is found that he was only negligent in his duty and there was no criminal intention to commit the alleged offence. Therefore, the following order is passed. Petitioner shall surrender before the Magistrate Court concerned within seven days from today and he shall be released on bail on his executing a self bond for Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, on the following conditions: BA.6829/08 5 i) Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer within three days of his release from custody and make himself available for interrogation and co-operate with the investigation. ii) Petitioner shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with evidence or commit any offence while on bail. Petition is allowed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.