IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 551 of 2009(B) ---------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 5/2009 OF EDAKKAD POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- K.M. ABDUL SHUKKUR, S/O. MOOSA HAJI, AGED 32 YEARS, KULANGAD, CHALA, PADINHAREKKARA, EDAKKAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.P.M.PAREETH. RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.H.O, EDAKKAD POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVA KUMAR. THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 551 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC. According to prosecution, petitioner married one Shafeena and the “nikkah” was registered with the Darul-ulum Sabha, Kappad. On 31-12-2008 petitioner sent “thalaq” in which two persons signed as witnesses. But signature of one of the witnesses by name M.P.Riyas was found not to tally with his earlier signature and it appeared to be forged. Hence, Secretary caused a lawyer's notice to be issued to the said witness. He sent a reply notice but did not admit his signature in the “thalaq” and hence, a complaint was filed against petitioner, since signature of a witness was forged by him and used it as a genuine. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made. A lawyer notice was sent to the witness Riyas and he sent a reply as Annexure- A2 to the same and a reading of the lawyer notice would show that “thalaq” was signed by him. The complaint is baseless and hence, petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. BA 551/09 -2- 4. This petition is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel appearing for de facto complainant. It is submitted by them that there is nothing in Anneuxre-A2 reply notice to show that the witness admitted his signature in “thalaq”. Though several facts are stated in the said notice, he had not specifically admitted that he had signed in the “thalaq”. It was because of this reason that a complaint was filed, since the witness did not admit the signature in the “thalaq”. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the case diary also reveals that the witness gave a statement to the Sabha stating that he has not signed in the “thalaq”. This is a case which has to go for investigation and hence, petitioner is required for interrogation. In Annexure-A2 not a single word is mentioned which will indicate that the signature in the “thalaq nama” is that of the petitioner himself. This is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 5. On hearing both sides, considering the serious nature of the allegations made against petitioner, regarding forgery, etc., I am satisfied of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor that it is not fit to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner's interrogation will be required to ascertain the facts, which are BA 551/09 -3- his exclusive knowledge. The crime was registered as early as on 8-1-2009 and petitioner is bound to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, the following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.