IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2011 / 19TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6235 of 2011() ----------------------------- CRIME NO.308/2011 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER : ACCUSED -------------------- ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.KUNHALI, POOZHIKKUTHU HOUSE, THRIKKALANGODU AMSOM, CHERANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM RESPONDENT: --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Bail Appln.No.6235 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of August, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.308 of 2011 of Malappuram Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case is the following:- One Zeenath applied for a passport before the Passport Office, Malappuram. Along with the application, she produced a community certificate. The community certificate was sent to the Tahasildar for verification. It was revealed that the community certificate was a forged one and the Tahsildar did not issue the same. The allegation is that accused No.1, son of Zeenath approached accused No.2 to get the Community Certificate. For that purpose accused No.2 approached accused No.3, who runs a travel agency. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 collected a sum of `35,000/- from Zeenath Bail Appln.No.6235/2011 : 2 : and forged community certificate which was produced along with the passport application. On the basis of the forged documents, passport was issued to Zeenath. The offence was detected only on further verification of the documents. 4. The offence alleged against the petitioner and the other accused are very grave in nature. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is involved in Crime Nos.429 of 2009 and 312 of 2009 for similar offences registered at Malappuram Police Station. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to get the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the case. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, it would adversely affect the proper and smooth investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE skj