IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 Bail Appl..No. 5664 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.626/2011 OF FORT POLICE STATION) .................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------ FATHAHUDEEN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL HASSAN, AZAD NAGAR, TC.46/1084, MUTTATHURA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SMT.MAJIDA.S SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK K.T.SANKARAN, J. --------------------------------- B.A. No.5664 OF 2011 --------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 ORDER This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioner is the 2nd accused in Crime No.626 of 2011 of the Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 420 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell is the following: Salim, the defacto complainant owned a car bearing registration No.KL-01/AR 3294. He pledged the vehicle to the 1st accused for `95,000/- (Rupees Ninety five thousand only). The 1st accused told the defacto complainant that the R.C.Book of the vehicle was lost and requested the defacto complainant to make a newspaper publication to that effect. The defacto complainant complied with the same. Later, the B.A. No.5664 OF 2011 2 1st accused told the defacto complainant that the R.C.Book was searched and found out at his residence. The further case is that accused Nos.1 and 2 forged a R.C.Book and sold the vehicle to a person, who sold it to Sajeer. Sajeer sold the vehicle to Siyad. Siyad sold the vehicle to one Ramesh. Ramesh sold the vehicle to Dr.Manoj. Dr.Manoj submitted an application to the registering authority to change the ownership of the vehicle. At that time, it was revealed that the R.C.Book produced by him did not contain hypothecation particulars whereas really the vehicle was subject to hypothecation to the Bank of Maharashtra. The prosecution case is that to make it appear that the vehicle is not subject to any hypothecation, accused Nos.1 and 2 forged a registration certificate deleting the hypothecation particulars and sold the vehicle for higher price to Sajeer, who sold the vehicle as mentioned above. 4. The specific case against the petitioner is that he is one of the persons who forged the registration certificate. 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 B.A. No.5664 OF 2011 3 case. In a case of this nature, I do not think it is proper to grant anticipatory bail, thereby paralyzing the proper investigation of the case. For the aforesaid reason, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE. cms