IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2008 / 28TH SRAVANA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 5173 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.355/2008 OF NALLALAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- SAJEEVAN, S/O.PERACHUTTY, THARAYIL HOUSE, GURUVAYOORAPPAN COLONY P.O. KOZHIKODE - 14. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT/STATE ------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SRI.K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Bail Appl.No. 5173 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2008. ORDER Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 468, 471 and 420 IPC. According to prosecution, a fake permit was found being used for transporting and mining sand. On information by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, the police made a search in the premises of the institution run by the petitioner. Several fake permits were seized from the said premises. The prosecution case is that the petitioner is engaged in creating forged sand permits for mining and transporting sand. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the F.I.R. does not reveal anything to connect the petitioner with the crime. One person handed over a permit, which is alleged to be fake, but the petitioner had nothing to do with such permits. It is, however, conceded that the petitioner has a lorry, which is being used for transportation of sand. [B.A.No.5173/08] 2 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, from the premises of the petitioner's institution, several forged permits were seized, which were purported to be issued from the Grama Panchayat. Petitioner is engaged in creating forged documents and hence this petition is strongly opposed. On hearing both sides, I find that the petitioner will be required for interrogation and in the nature of the allegations made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.