IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 5TH ASWINA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6342 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.250/2011 OF KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------- K.VIJAYAN, AGED 42 YEARS,S/O.KANNAN, KRISHNA POST PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J. RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SI OF POLICE KOZHIKKODE TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6342 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.250 of 2011 of Kozhikode Town Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 466, 468, 476, 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- The petitioner/first accused (Vijayan) availed a loan of Rs.4,44,000/- from Karoor Vysya Bank for the purchase of a Tata Sumo Vehicle. It was stated that the vehicle belonged to accused No.3 (Ahammed Kutty), while really the vehicle belonged to another person. It is also alleged that the accused produced a photo copy of the registration certificate in respect of the vehicle showing hypothecation in favour of the Bank. When the bank made enquiries, it was revealed that the vehicle was sold to a third party and that the registration certificate does not contain an endorsement of hypothecation Bail Appln.No.6342/2011 : 2 : as was mentioned in the photo copy produced before the bank. It is alleged that a forged document was produced before the bank. It is alleged that the accused committed the offence as aforesaid. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj