IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 4281 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.966/2010 OF CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------------- BABU RAJAN, S/O. JANARDHANA KURUP, SASTHA NILAYAM, CHERIYAVELINALOOR MURI, ILAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHADAYAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010 ALONG WITH B.A 4403/2010 AND B.A 4400/2010. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. Nos. 4281, 4403, and 4400 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition is for bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 466, 468, 471 r/w 34 IPC and Section 12(b) of Indian Passport Act. According to prosecution, first accused applied for passport. He produced forged identity card and S.S.L.C book along with the application. On verification, it was found that first accused handed over the original documents to second accused and gave it to third accused who is running a travel agency. Fourth accused is an employee of third accused. Accused umbers 1 to 6, in furtherance of common intention committed forgery and used the forged documents and thereby committed the above offences. 3. Learned counsel for first accused submitted that first accused was not aware of any forgery. He only handed over his original documents to second accused for obtaining passport. It is only when the police came home that he knew that the documents were forged. It is submitted by second accused that second accused only introduced first accused to third accused who is a travel agent, but, he has nothing to do with the forgery. B.A. Nos. 4282, 4403, and 4400 of 2010 2 4. Learned counsel for third accused submitted that third accused had undergone hysterectomy for fibroid uterus and as per Annexure A2 medical record, she was admitted in hospital on 11/04/2010 and she was discharged on 19/04/2010. She is advised rest for a long period. The forgery is allegedly committed in respect of documents which are produced along with an application dated 06/05/2010. But, petitioner was bedridden during the relevant time and she has nothing to do with the alleged forgery, it is submitted. 5. Petitioners are in custody for the past about 22 days. First accused was arrested on 07/07/2010 and second and third accused were arrested on 08/07/2010. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the actual acts of forgery are allegedly committed by fifth and sixth accused. Considering the limited role of petitioners compared to fifth and sixth accused, he has no objection in granting bail to petitioners on stringent conditions, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that bail can be granted on conditions. Hence the following order is passed: B.A. Nos. 4282, 4403, and 4400 of 2010 3 Petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Magistrate Court concerned on the following conditions: i) Petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer on every Monday and Thursday, between 10 A.M. and 1 P.M. ii) Petitioners shall not influence or intimidate any witness or tamper with the evidence. iv) In case, petitioners are involved in any similar offence, bail is liable to be cancelled. This petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE vdv