IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 3294 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.454/2009 OF CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- SREEKUMAR, S/O.SUNDARESAN, VELIYATH HOUSE, SOUTH CHITTOOR, COCHIN-27. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENT(S): STATE & PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ---------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERANELLOOR POLICE STATION, CHERANELLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ---------------------------------- B.A.No.3294 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 ORDER This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.454 of 2009 of Cheranelloor Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 read with section 12 of the Passports Act. The petitioner was arrested on 28.5.2009 and he is in judicial custody. 3. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioner Sreekumar obtained another Indian Passport under the name Biju Gopalan and conducted a partnership business with his wife as partner in Dubai. It is alleged that the petitioner promised high returns to the defacto complainant, in case the money is invested in his business concern. Accordingly, the defacto complainant invested a sum of Rs.65.38 lakhs in the business concern run by the first accused along with his wife. It is also alleged that few cheques were given as a security. The cheques were also dishonoured. Originally, the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Magistrate's court which was forwarded to the BA No.3294/2009 2 police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, the crime was registered. During investigation, it was revealed that a second passport was obtained by the petitioner forging certain documents with the help of the accused Nos.3 to 5. Those persons were also included as the accused persons. The investigation is going on. 4. The learned public prosecutor submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this juncture, it is most likely that he may influence the witnesses and tamper with evidence. It is also likely that he may make himself scarce. 5. Taking into account the fact and circumstances of the case, the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner, the present stage of investigation, the likelihood of the petitioner tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses and also the likelihood of the petitioner making himself scarce, I do not think it is proper to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl