IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 275 of 2010() ---------------------------- Cr.NO.9/2010 OF CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER : ACCUSED NO.1 ----------------------------------------- MOHAMMED NISHAD, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MOIDUNNI, RESIDING AT KALLUMMEL VALAPPIL HOUSE MOOKUTHALA P.O., PONNANI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN SRI.P.G.SURESH SMT.K.VIDYA SRI.M.R.VIBIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHANGARAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- B.A.No.275 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Cr.No.9 of 2010 of Changaramkulam Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(b) of the Passport Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the accused persons, three in number, forged a birth certificate as if it was issued by Nannammukku Grama Panchayath in favour of the first accused and it was produced before the passport office, Malappuram in order to get a passport for the first accused. The first accused obtained the passport. The passport office verified the correctness and genuineness of the birth certificate with Nannammukku Grama Panchayath. The Panchayath reported that they had not issued any such certificate. 4. The petitioner states that he is a college student and that he wanted to go abroad. It is also stated that after the crime BA No.275/2010 2 was detected, he surrendered the passport. Both these aspects are not grounds for granting anticipatory bail. The offences alleged against the accused are serious in nature. Custodial interrogation may be required in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE csl