IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 565 of 2008(P) ----------------------------- CRIME NO.662/06 OF CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 & 3: ------------------------------------------- 1. PRABHAKARAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, VELLAPOYIL THOOBATHODI HOUSE, KALIKAVU VILLAGE, NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DIST. (GRADE ASI, NILAMBUR POLICE STATION). 2. P. VELAYUDHAN, S/O. THOMAN, PULACHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PERAMBRA, PALLIKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (GD SMD (POSTMAN), PATTIKKAD POST OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE, CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAI GEORGE. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- B.A. No. 565 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008 ORDER Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in a crime registered alleging commission of the offences punishable, inter alia, under Sec.12 of the Passport Act and Sec.468 of the IPC. The crux of the allegations is that the 1st accused travelled into India with a forged passport. It was issued to another person with a different name. The photograph of that person was removed and the photograph of the 1st accused was affixed in the said passport. He was intercepted at the air port. Investigation commenced. It was then revealed that there is no person by the original name in the passport available in the locality. The 1st petitioner/A2 is a police official who had allegedly conducted the passport verification. The 2nd petitioner/3rd B.A. No. 565 OF 2008 -: 2 :- accused is the Postman who had allegedly delivered the passport in that fictitious name and address. The needle of suspicion is pointed at the petitioners. Now it is alleged that they in collusion with others had brought the forged document into existence and facilitated the use of such passport. The 1st accused has already been arrested and enlarged on bail. As per his statement the passport was given to him by some other person in the foreign country. Investigation is in progress. The petitioners apprehend imminent arrest. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are absolutely innocent. According to the petitioners, there was a person by such a name. The verification was done by A2 and the delivery was effected by A3 to such person. In these circumstances, the petitioners pray that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the order granting bail by the learned Sessions Judge for some other accused under identical circumstances in a totally different crime. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application vehemently. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the facts and circumstances of this case clearly point to the existence of a conspiracy/collusion by various accused persons. B.A. No. 565 OF 2008 -: 3 :- The petitioners have to be interrogated thoroughly. The circumstances under which the 1st petitioner/A2 had verified the passport and the 2nd petitioner/A3 had delivered the passport must be probed into in detail. They deserve to be interrogated thoroughly and exhaustively to unearth the conspiracy/plot behind the creation of such a forged passport. At any rate, there are no circumstances warranting or justifying the invocation of the extraordinary equitable discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners may not be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I find merit in the opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor. I am satisfied that the petitioners have to be interrogated thoroughly to resolve the mystery of the crime. I find merit in the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that without the support of the petitioners such collusive attempt does not appear to be probable. At any rate, I am not persuaded to agree that the petitioners deserves to be granted anticipatory bail. The fact that they are officials belonging to two different departments do not at all weigh with me as a sufficient reason to invoke the discretion under Sec.438 of the Cr.P.C. 5. This, I am satisfied, is a fit case where the petitioners B.A. No. 565 OF 2008 -: 4 :- must resort to the normal and ordinary course of appearing before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the usual course. 6. In the result, this bail application is dismissed; but with the observation that if the petitioners surrender before the Investigating Officer or the learned Magistrate and seek bail, after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits and expeditiously. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge