IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 5945 of 2009() ----------------------------- ( AGAINST CBCID CRIME NO.46/CR/TVPM/04 (THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION CRIME 242/03- TRIVANDRUM) PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ D.R.NANDAKUMAR,S/O. DIVAKARAN NAIR, MELATHIL VEEDU, THENNUR, VELLAYANI, NEMOM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESNTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. DETECTIVE INSPEPCTOR, CBCID, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM UNIT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKARA MOHAMMED. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------------- Bail Appln. No. 5945 of 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of March , 2010. ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. Petitioner is the first accused in the crime and the allegations made against him are under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) IPC. A crime was registered against petitioner as first accused on the basis of a complaint made by Senior Manager, Kerala State Financial Enterprises. The case was transferred to the Crime Branch and it was re-numbered. According to the prosecution, petitioner applied for loan and for obtaining the loan he produced some bogus salary certificates purported to be issued to 2nd and 3rd accused as sureties. Fourth accused is the person who is stated to have issued such certificate. 3. Petitioner had filed an earlier application for anticipatory bail as B.A.No.3767 of 2008. The said application was dismissed by this Court as per order dated [B.A.No.5945/09] 2 17.6.2008. At the time of hearing of the said application, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that certificates were obtained in the name of persons who are actually not in existence. This fact was known to petitioner. On the submissions made, this court found that it is satisfied that it was not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor at the time of hearing of the earlier bail application was not correct and hence he has moved this petition again. In the light of the controversy, second respondent, the Detective Inspector, CBCID, filed a detailed statement in which it is re-iterated in paragraph 6 that accused nos. 2 to 4 are fictitious persons. As per the statement, investigation revealed that there were no such individuals working at the office of Chief Engineer, Irrigation and hence the salary certificates are bogus and those were created with the knowledge, consent and conspiracy of accused no.1 who committed the offence and cheated the bank. [B.A.No.5945/09] 3 5. On hearing both sides, in the light of the statement made by 2nd respondent, I do not think that petitioner has any ground to get anticipatory bail. I would also note that the crime was registered as early as on 6.10.2003 and more than six years have elapsed after registration of the crime and on the facts and circumstances of the case, an interrogation of petitioner by police may be necessary for an effective investigation. The long delay caused for interrogation also may affect the investigation adversely. In such circumstances, I am least inclined to grant anticipatory bail in a case of this nature. 6. Petitioner shall report before the investigating officer or before the trial court within 7 days from today and make himself available for interrogation. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. krs.