IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2008 / 21ST POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7896 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 690/07 OF CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION PETITIONER. ---------------------------- P.N.INDIRA, AGED 47 YEAS, W/O. GIREESAN, K.R.KOTTAYIL VEEDU, MARADU, NETTUR P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SUCHEENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, THE CHALAKUDY TWON CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD., TOWN BANK TOWER, MAIN ROAD, CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY POLICE STATION. 3. MARIKUTTY P.A., JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICER, B.S.N.L. FORT KOCHI. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 7896 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner faces allegations in a crime registered alleging commission of the offence punishable, inter alia, under Sections 420 and 471 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that she, an employee of the BSNL, engaged herself in the culpable activity of making use of forged salary certificate in her name and produce the same before various financial institutions, co- operative banks etc. to enable others to avail loans. She allegedly received consideration for such involvement of hers. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an employee of the BSNL. She is entitled for issue of certificate in her name. There is no reason why she should have forged such certificates. It is admitted that she stood surety in the transactions. But according to her, the employment certificate which is alleged to be forged was not produced by her. B.A.No. 7896 of 2007 2 2. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that there are absolutely no circumstances justifying or warranting the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. The scheme and plot are very evident. The petitioner cannot go on applying for salary certificates from her employer to stand surety for others. Therefore she had resorted to this method of producing forged certificates before the authorities. 3. The case diary has been perused by me. At this early stage of investigation I shall carefully avoid any detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that I am unable to find any features in this case which would justify the invocation of the extra ordinary equitable discretion under section 438 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. This, I agree with the learned Prosecutor, is a fit case where the petitioner must be directed to appear before the Investigator or the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction and then seek regular bail in the ordinary course. B.A.No. 7896 of 2007 3 5. This application is accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that if the petitioner appears before the learned Magistrate and applies for bail after giving sufficient prior notice to the Prosecutor in charge of the case, the learned Magistrate must proceed to pass orders on merits, in accordance with law and expeditiously. (R. BASANT) Judge tm