IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2008 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 1969 of 2008() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.746/07 OF CHALAKKUDY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER : ACCUSED --------------------------- SUDHEEP.S, S/O.B SUDHAKARAN NAIR, AGED 34, NARAYANEEYAM,PAZHAVEEDU P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ B.A.No.1969 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. Petitioner apprehends arrest as accused in Crime 746 of 2007 of Chalakkudy Police Station registered alleging commission of the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. 2. Birth certificate of a woman was allegedly produced before the authorities. It was found that the said certificate is not genuine and is forged. On coming to know of such alleged forgery, the Secretary of the Chalakkudy Municipality filed a complaint before the police. Accordingly the crime has been registered. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner was an employee of the said Municipality. He now works elsewhere. The petitioner apprehends that he may be arrested on the allegation that he has committed the non bailable offences alleged in Crime 746 of 2007. 3. According to the petitioner, he is absolutely innocent. He has nothing to do with the certificate in question. He was not working at the relevant time in the section dealing with issue of B.A.No.1969 of 2008 2 such certificate in the Chalakkudy Municipality. Allegations are being made without any justification. The petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail was opposed by the State and the same rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. Anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioner, it is prayed. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor after taking instructions submits that no decision has yet been taken to formally array the petitioner as an accused or to arrest him. Investigation is in progress. The petitioner is certainly a suspected person. But the decision to formally array him as an accused or to arrest him has not been taken. Needle of suspicion is pointed at the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has to be interrogated. He must co- operate with the Investigating Officer. He shall not be arrested now. Only if further investigation reveals the complicity of the petitioner, he shall be arrayed as accused and arrested, if necessary. At the moment, there is no intention to arrest the petitioner at all. The apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis. The petitioner may not be permitted to arm himself with an order of anticipatory bail now. The learned Public Prosecutor undertakes that the petitioner shall not be arrested. He further undertakes that if at a later stage it is found necessary to array the B.A.No.1969 of 2008 3 petitioner as an accused and arrest him, prior notice shall be given to the petitioner of such arrest and prior permission of this Court shall be taken before such arrest is effected. 5. The said submission and the undertaking of the learned Public Prosecutor are taken note of. It is now found that the apprehension of the petitioner is without any basis. The petitioner must co-operate with the investigator and appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation/examination as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. 6. With the above observations, this Bail Application is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-