IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 21ST JUNE 2010 / 31ST JYAISTHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3443 of 2010() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN BA.6665/2009 Dated 30/11/2009 .................... (CRIME NO.315/2009 OF KOZHINJAMPARA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER ------------------------------ R.S.MANOJ MUMAR,AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN NAIR, GANESHA PURAM HUSE, KAMBALAKKAD, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.K.J.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/06/2010, ALONG WITH BA NO. 3465 OF 2010 BA NO. 3444 OF 2010 BA NO. 3447 OF 2010 BA NO. 3462 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A Nos 3443, 3444, 3447, 3462 AND 3465 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of June 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 455, 468, 471 and 120B r/w 34 IPC. According to prosecution, certain dealers in chicken who were bringing chicken from various places in Tamil Nadu to Kerala were expected to pay tax contemplated under Value Added Tax Act. It was sufficient, if Demand Drafts are produced at the relevant check post. Various Demand Drafts were produced at the check post while petitioner (A3) and other dealers brought chicken to Kerala. Later, it was found that Demand Drafts produced before the check post were forged by fifth accused who is a computer expert, using check leaves issued by different banks to certain societies. This was done in furtherance of common intention to commit the various offences. 3. The prosecution case is that in furtherance of common intention of all the accused, certain persons started three paper societies and they also opened accounts in various banks. After obtaining check leaves from the bank, those were used for forging the cheque leaves into Demand Drafts. Rupees fourteen crores B.A Nos 3443, 3444, 3447, 3462 AND 3465 OF 2010 2 were lost by the Government because of the offence committed by petitioner and others and various crimes were registered against petitioner and other accused. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this court had granted anticipatory bail to a co-accused who stands on similar footing as that of the petitioner as per Annexure B order dated 30/11/2009 in B.A No.6171/2009 and B.A No.6665/2009 on the ground that accused paid tax. Hence, on the same ground, petitioner may also be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. It is alsos argued that petitioner's interrogation is not necessary. Petitioner's earlier application for anticipatory bail was dismissed on the ground that petitioner's interrogation is necessary. 5. This petition is strongly opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He pointed out that this is the second application for anticipatory bail and there is no change of circumstance. This court had found that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail as per Annexure A order. Petitioner has not made out any ground to grant anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that when various anticipatory bail applications came up for hearing, learned DGP submitted before this court that in the case of persons who had paid tax, there was no objection and in view of the stand taken by the respondent at that time, anticipatory bail was B.A Nos 3443, 3444, 3447, 3462 AND 3465 OF 2010 3 granted by virtue of Annexure B order. But, petitioner did not pay on offer to pay and his application was dismissed. Huge amount was lost by the Government because of the offencea committed by the petitioner and others and this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 6. On hearing both sides and on going through the orders Annexure A and B, I find that Annexure B order by which anticipatory bail was granted was passed as early as on 30/11/2009. Anticipatory bail was granted only because petitioners in that case paid advance tax. But, petitioner's earlier application for anticipatory bail was disposed of subsequently as per order dated 29/03/2010 in B.A No.1013/2010 as per Annexure A. The petitioner could have advanced the same ground in the earlier application but, he did not do so. He also did not pay tax and sought for lleniency. 7. Petitioner had sufficient opportunity to raise the same ground which is raised now while his earlier application was considered. He did not do so. It is also to be noted that the court found in Annexure A order that custodial interrogation of petitioner will be required in this case and if anticipatory bail is granted to petitioner, it will adversely affect investigation of the case. This court also held in the said order: “I do not think that B.A Nos 3443, 3444, 3447, 3462 AND 3465 OF 2010 4 the petitioner is entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 8. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that there is absolutely no ground to grant anticipatory bail. This case was registered as early as on 13/10/2009. This court had already held in Annexure A order that petitioner is required for interrogation for proper investigation of this case. Petitioner is bound to surrender before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with investigation. 9. Hence, I make it clear that no further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this case will be entertained by this court,especially since I am satisfied that any delay in investigation will affect the investigation adversely. Petitions are dismissed. K.HEMA JUDGE vdv