IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 Bail Appl..No. 7762 of 2007() ----------------------------- CRIME NO. 259/07 OF KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- M.V.BHASKARAN WARRIER \S/O. VAMANAN NAMBOODIRI, PADINJARE WARRIAM, P.O. VELUR VIA WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.A.SAMEER SRI.R.JAYACHANDRAN SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: STATE COMPLAINANT ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUNNAMKULAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B.A.No. 7762 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 O R D E R Application for anticipatory bail. The petitioner is the second accused. Altogether there are three accused persons. They face allegations in a crime registered alleging offences under Sections 466 and 420 I.P.C. 2. The crux of the allegations is that the birth of the first accused was registered in the local authority. The name of the first accused is shown as Reghu C. He is Reghu C, S/o. Ramachandran belonging to Warrier community. The birth certificate shows his name as C.Reghu only. 3. The first accused was educated at Maharashtra. His school records show his name as Warrier Reghu Ramachandran. The practice there is to show the surname first and that is why the community name of the first accused is shown as his first name. The first accused has now completed his education. He has gone abroad to take up some employment. His passport and B.A.No. 7762 of 2007 2 other documents show his name as Warrier Reghu Ramachandran. The authorities wanted confirmation with the birth certificate of the first accused. There is a difference in the name shown i.e. Warrier Reghu Ramachandran in the school records, passport etc. and Reghu C in the birth certificate. The first accused is now employed abroad. He wanted the second accused, a relative of his, to get a proper certificate to show that the entry in the birth certificate relates to him. The petitioner allegedly engaged the third accused to get a proper certificate to clarify the issue. 4. A certificate has now been obtained and produced before the authorities. But it is seen that the signature in the certificate is not affixed by the person who is purported to have issued the same. The seal of the local authority affixed in the certificate is genuine, it would appear. The complaint/grievance is only that the signature in the document is not of the person who is purported to have issued it. Investigation commenced on the basis of a report received by the Principal Secretary from the Addl. Director General of Police, Intelligence, who conducted an enquiry into the matter. Three persons have been arrayed as accused. The first accused is admittedly B.A.No. 7762 of 2007 3 employed abroad at the relevant time. The petitioner/second accused is the relative of the first accused, who was entrusted with the job of getting the certificate. The third accused is alleged to be a person, who was entrusted by the petitioner herein the responsibility to get the certificate issued to him. According to the petitioner, he has been absolutely innocent. He had entrusted the work to the third accused and it was he who got the certificate to him. The petitioner is not aware of the fact that it was a forged one. The contents of the certificate are all true. It does not show any wrong information. The petitioner is not responsible for the forgery committed by the third accused. The petitioner had received the same bonafide. In these circumstances the petitioner may be saved of the undeserved trauma of arrest and detention. He is willing to co-operate with the investigation. He has already been questioned by the Investigators. He has no culpable involvement at all. Subject to any appropriate conditions, he may be granted anticipatory bail, submits the learned counsel. 5. The learned Prosecutor opposes the application. He points out that this Court had already refused the prayer for anticipatory bail of the third accused. There is no reason to treat the petitioner/A2 B.A.No. 7762 of 2007 4 differently. He may also be directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer. If at all the third accused has committed the forgery, such forgery must have been committed for and on behalf of the first and second accused and there is no reason to assume that they have no culpable involvement in the alleged offence. 6. In view of the peculiar nature of the contentions, the learned Prosecutor was directed to make the case diary available for my perusal. I have perused the same. It was revealed that it was the third accused who went to the stamp vendor and purchased the stamp papers. It was he who took the stamp papers to a computer agency and got the allegedly forged document prepared. There are materials to show that it was the petitioner who went to the Notary and got the certificate attested and obtained the copy. At this early stage of investigation I shall not embark on any detailed discussion on merits about the acceptability of the allegations raised or the credibility of the data collected. Suffice it to say that on an anxious consideration of all other relevant circumstances, I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the alleged fact that the certificate was forged. In any view of the B.A.No. 7762 of 2007 5 matter, I am satisfied that subject to appropriate conditions, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail. The interests of the prosecution will be secured by imposing appropriate conditions, I am satisfied. 7. In the result: (1) This application is allowed. (2) The following directions are issued under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (a) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Magistrate on 22.1.2008 at 11 a.m. The learned Magistrate shall release the petitioner on regular bail on condition that he executes a bond for Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. (b) The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on 23.1.08 and 24.1.2008. During this period, the investigators shall be at liberty to interrogate the petitioner in custody and take all necessary steps in connection with the investigation. Thereafter he shall appear before the B.A.No. 7762 of 2007 6 Investigating Officer on all Mondays and Fridays between 10 a.m. and 12 noon for a period of one month and subsequently as and when directed by the Investigating Officer in writing to do so. (c) If the petitioner does not appear before the learned Magistrate as directed in clause (1) above, these directions shall lapse on 22.1.08 and the police shall be at liberty thereafter to arrest the petitioner and deal with him in accordance with law. (d) If the petitioner were arrested prior to his surrender on 22.1.2008 as directed in clause (1) above, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs.50,000/- without any surety undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on 22.1.2008. (R. BASANT) Judge tm