IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 17TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7227 of 2008 ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.746/2007 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED:- ----------------------------------- PAUL, S/O. PAULOSE, PALLAN HOUSE, CHALAKUDY DESOM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:- -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING THE S.I. OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------- B.A.No.7227 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 6th day of February, 2009 ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. Alleged offences are under Sections 420, 466, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, for the purpose of getting birth certificate of Ms.Sheela Paul for the educational purposes of her children in Switzerland, the relatives of Ms.Sheela Paul approached petitioner (2nd accused) and he along with first accused in furtherance of common intention forged documents and committed the various offences. Petitioner is a Councillor of Chalakudy Municipality. The crime was registered on 22.11.2007. 3. According to petitioner, he is a Councillor of Chalakudy Municipality and he has no acquaintance with Ms.Sheela Paul. Petitioner has no knowledge or involvement regarding the application made for getting birth certificate and issuance of the same. Petitioner apprehends that he will be implicated in the crime and he is apprehending arrest. Hence this petition. B.A.No.7727 of 2008 2 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that petitioner is implicated in this crime as second accused. The allegations made against him are serious in nature and it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The co-accused had applied for anticipatory bail and it was dismissed as per order dated 7.4.2008 in B.A.No.1969 of 2008 by this Court. In the said order the first accused was directed to co-operate with the investigation and appear before the investigator as and when directed. 5. On considering the rival contentions and the serious nature of the allegations made, I am satisfied that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. In the nature of the allegations made, petitioner will be required for interrogation to elicit the facts which are within the exclusive knowledge of petitioner which will be necessary for an effective investigation. The crime is registered as early as in 2007 and the investigation is in standstill, since the accused has not surrendered before police. Hence the following order is passed: i) Petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer and co-operate with the investigation. Whether he B.A.No.7727 of 2008 3 surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed with in accordance with law. ii) No other application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court. Petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE vns