IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 167 of 2009(E) ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.386/08 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED : ---------------------------------- G.SATHEESH KUMAR, S/O. P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, SYAMALA BHAVAN ERAVILA,. PEROORKADA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, THAMPANOOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ---------------------------- B.A. No.167 OF 2009 ---------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 O R D E R This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of I.P.C. According to prosecution, first accused raised a loan of Rs.1Lakh from the Kerala State Financial Enterprises. Accused nos.1 and 2 produced salary certificates as sureties and those were found to be forged documents. When the payment was defaulted KSFE wrote a letter to the PWD office, where accused nos.1 and 2 allegedly working, to confirm whether the salary certificates produced before the KSFE were issued by the PWD office or not. Third accused opened the said letter and forged the seal of the PWD and also forged the document to make it appears that the salary certificates were genuine. Thereby, all the accused in furtherance of common intention committed various offence in conspiracy. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner (third accused) is absolutely innocent of the B.A.No.167 of 2009 2 allegations made. Petitioner is implicated in the offence, since he was previously involved in a similar offence. In the present case he is innocent and no enquiry was conducted against him before he was implicated. Annexure B contains the details furnished under the right to Information Act, as per which, no information was given to the PWD office regarding the third accused that he was involved in the offence. But as per the allegations made by prosecution, it was based on the information from the post office under the Right to Information Act that petitioner was also implicated. Such allegation is belied by Annexure B, it is submitted. It is also pointed that petitioner was under suspension in earlier cases and there is a move to reinstate him but in the meanwhile, he is implicated in the present case and hence, he may again be suspended. In such circumstances, he requested for anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application and contended that petitioner is involved in similar offence earlier also. He is involved in 3 other cases of similar nature and it is not correct to say that petitioner's involvement was not enquired into earlier. Enquiry was conducted and B.A.No.167 of 2009 3 information was gathered from the post office itself. The contents of Annexure B may not be sufficient to belie the information gathered on an enquiry. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of allegations made and the nature of investigation required, I am satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. It is not clear from Annexure B as to what query, said information was given. The crime was registered as early as on 04.09.2008 and petitioner is not available for investigation so far. In the nature of the allegations made, custodial interrogation may be required. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. i) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. ii) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be B.A.No.167 of 2009 4 entertained by this court hereafter. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE pac