IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7060 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.687/08 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SUBAIR, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, RESIDING AT PADDY HOUSE, ANGADIMUGAR, PUTHIGAI, KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.M.S.BREEZE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No. 7060 of 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th November, 2008 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, an application for passport was filed and another petition was also filed for police verification. Along with the second application, certain documents were produced. On police verification, it was found one of such documents, which was attested by a doctor, was forged. There was no doctor in that name and the seal was falsely created. It was created by petitioner, who is the third accused. A crime is registered under Sections 468 and 417 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. He submitted that no allegations are made against petitioner and in the report dated 5.10.2008, no mention is made about petitioner. As per his instructions, there is no allegation against petitioner of having committed any offence, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner is third accused, who created the false BA.7060/08 2 seal for the purpose of forging a document, which was produced along with the application requesting for police verification. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing learned counsel for petitioner, it appears that he has no made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail, especially since he has been repeatedly saying that absolutely no allegations are made against petitioner. If no allegations are made against petitioner, it is not understood why he filed this application for anticipatory bail, at all. Only if petitioner apprehends arrest on having committed a non bailable offence, Section 438 Cr.P.C can be invoked. 6. On hearing learned Public Prosecutor, it appears that petitioner is third accused and investigation is going on against petitioner in connection with a serious offence. Petitioner's presence and interrogation is required for ascertaining the facts which are within his exclusive knowledge. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The crime is registered as early as on 4.10.2008 and petitioner has not been available for interrogation so far. BA.7060/08 3 Petitioner is directed to surrender before investigating officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest petitioner and proceed in accordance with law. With this direction, petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vgs.