IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 6125 of 2011 CRIME NO.765 OF 2010 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT PETITIONER : ACCUSED: ------------------------------ SHAJI.K, S/O.KUMARAN, AMRITA, THAZHAM THEKKU, CHATHANNOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH PANICKER RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. 3. ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ Bail Appl. NO. 6125 OF 2011 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 5th 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.765 of 2010 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10(3) (b) read with Section 12(1)(b) of the Passport Act. 3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner applied for Passport in a different name and address with forged documents. On verification, it was found that there was no such addressee in the address furnished by the petitioner. The investigation revealed that the petitioner is in possession of a Passport, which is valid up to 2.6.2015. He had applied for another Passport with forged documents and showing a false address. BAIL APPL. NO. 6125 OF 2011 :: 2 :: 4. The offences levelled against the petitioner are very grave in nature. In a case of this nature, the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be granted. The matter requires investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be required in the 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/