IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 15TH MAGHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 426 of 2008() ---------------------------- CRIME NO. 1094/07 OF MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ---------------------------------------- SHAMSUDHEEN,S/O.ABOOBACKER VARANGOTTU HOUSE, PUTHUKKUDI MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 426 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner/A3 faces allegations in a crime registered for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 468 I.P.C. Initially there was only one accused. The allegation was that he submitted an application for issue of passport supported by forged documents. In the course of investigation three more persons have been arrayed as accused. Second accused is the travel agent. Petitioner/third accused is the person who allegedly created and manufactured the forged documents. The 4th accused is the employee of the postal department, who fraudulently delivered the passport to the second accused, though it was received in a fake address of the first accused. 2. The crux of the allegations against the petitioner is that he helped the second accused for huge consideration to manufacture forged documents like S.S.L.C. book, Village B.A.No. 426 of 2008 2 Officer's certificate, electoral card etc. of the first accused, which were presented along with the application for passport. Investigation is in progress. The first accused is said to be not available in India. Accused 2 and 4 have already been arrested and enlarged on bail. The petitioner apprehends imminent arrest. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is absolutely innocent. He is said to be owner of a printing press. Even if it is assumed that he has printed forms which were subsequently used by the first and/or second accused in their attempt to secure an undeserved passport, it cannot lightly be assumed that the petitioner shared the culpable contumacious intention along with others. Even going by the case of the prosecution, petitioner is the owner of the printing press, where the alleged forms were printed, in which entries were made to facilitate creation of false documents to support the application for passport. 4. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He submits that the available indications must effectively convey to the Court without any doubt the contumacious nature of the acts of the petitioner. B.A.No. 426 of 2008 3 He is not merely alleged to have printed the forms and made them available to other accused, which enabled them to create false documents, the very specific allegation as is revealed from the totality of circumstances, including the confession statement of the second accused, is that the petitioner had created false documents, which are purported to be documents issued by the Headmaster of the school concerned and the local Village Officer. The petitioner had created forged electoral card also. 5. Considering the nature of the contentions raised, the learned Prosecutor was requested to place the case diary for my perusal. I have perused the same. At this early stage of investigation I shall not embark on any detailed discussion on merit about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that having gone through the case diary and having considered all other relevant circumstances, I am unable to perceive 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 B.A.No. 426 of 2008 4 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. 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