IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5094 of 2009 CRIME NO.182 OF 2003 OF VALIYATHURA POLICE STATION (CBCID – 189/CR/51/03) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2: -------------------------------------- BAIJU.R, S/O.RAMANAN, AGED 37 YEARS, KAKKAPPARAMBATHUVELI VEEDU, CHERTHALA PO, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, ALONGWITH B.A.NO.5092 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NOS.5094, 5092, 5095, 5093 and 5101 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009 O R D E R These are applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the second accused in Crime Nos.182 of 2003, 183 of 2003, 184 of 2003, 185 of 2003 and 186 of 2003 of Valiyathura Police Station, which are now numbered as CBCID–189/CR/51/03, CBCID-190/CR/51/03, CBCID- 191/CR/51/03, CBCID-192/CR/51/03 and CBCID-193/CR/51/03 respectively. The first accused in each of these cases are different persons. However, the petitioner is the common second accused. 2. The offences alleged against the accused persons are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Passport Act. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: On 9.7.2003, the first accused in all the five cases were apprehended at the International Airport, Thiruvananthapuram, on the apprehension B.A.NOS.5094, 5092, 5095, 5093 & 5101 OF 2009 :: 2 :: that visa and clearance documents, with which they were trying to go abroad, were forged documents. Those persons belong to Kanyakumari District in Tamil Nadu. They stated to the Airport authorities that the visa and travel documents were arranged by one Baiju. Baiju is arrayed as the second accused in the case. The prosecution further alleges that the second accused took on rent a house in Ernakulam, which belonged to one Uthup. A rent deed dated 1.6.2003 was executed in favour of Uthup by the second accused. The illegal activities of forging visa and other documents were done in the house taken on rent by the second accused. 4. The petitioner apprehends arrest. He moved Bail Applications before the learned Sessions Judge. Those applications were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Municipal Councillor of Cherthala Municipality. He is the Chairman of the Standing Committee (Works) of the Municipality. He is a well known politician and he has no criminal antecedents. One Subramanyan, who is a close friend of the second accused, introduced one Vijayakumar to the petitioner/second accused. B.A.NOS.5094, 5092, 5095, 5093 & 5101 OF 2009 :: 3 :: Subramanyan requested the petitioner to render help to Vijayakumar in taking a house on rent in Ernakulam. Accordingly, the house was taken on rent from Uthup. According to the petitioner, the landlord insisted that the rent deed should be in the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, the rent deed was executed in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner has not really taken the house on rent. The occupant of the house was Vijayakumar. The petitioner is absolutely innocent of the offence alleged against him. There is no reason why the petitioner should conduct a travel agency or forge documents. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the landlord has disclosed that he had no previous acquaintance with the petitioner. Therefore, there is no reason why the rent deed should be executed in the name of the petitioner if the house was taken on lease by Vijayakumar. It is also submitted that there is reliable information and sufficient materials to come to the conclusion that forgery of visa and travel documents was committed by the second accused or by somebody else as directed by the second accused. The second accused is the person who provided to the first accused in the case the visa and travel documents. It is also submitted that the second B.A.NOS.5094, 5092, 5095, 5093 & 5101 OF 2009 :: 4 :: accused had received money from the respective first accused in the cases for forging the visa and travel documents. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the case put forward by the second accused that he is innocent of the offence is without substance. The investigation is in progress. It is submitted that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would have serious adverse impact on the proper investigation of the case. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the allegations levelled against the petitioner, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Custodial interrogation may be required in the case. The complicity of other accused, if any, has also to be brought to light. Forgery of visa and travel documents is a very serious offence. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in such cases in the normal circumstances. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Applications are dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/