IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5073 of 2011 CRIME NO.308 OF 2011 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- FAIZAL A.SAMAD, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL SAMAD, PROPRIETOR, M/S.FEROUS TRADERS, (IMPORT AND EXPORTS), CHENDAMANGALAM, NORTH PARAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.MUJEEB RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 5073 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.308 of 2011 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 468, 471 and 511 of 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is the following: The petitioner applied to the National Small Industries Corporation, a Government of India undertaking, for a loan of Rupees Fifty lakhs under the Raw Material Assistance Scheme, on 6.11.2010. The petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee for Rupees Fifty lakhs. The petitioner submitted a bank guarantee allegedly issued by the State Bank of India, K.U.Bazar Branch, Navi Mumbai. On verification, it was found that the K.U.Bazar Branch of the State Bank of India was closed down about three years ago. It was also found BAIL APPL. NO.5073 OF 2011 :: 2 :: that no such bank guarantee was issued by any of the branches of the State Bank of India in Mumbai. The prosecution case is that the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner was a forged one. 4. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are grave in nature. The discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be granted in such a 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 ahz/