IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 2375 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRMP.717/2010 of DISTRICT COURT, KOTTAYAM . CRIME NO.1211/2009 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- SHAJI.N.M,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.MADHAVAN, NEDUMALAYIL HOUSE,KATTAMPAKKU.PO,NJEEZHOOR VILLAGE VAIKOM ROAD,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTEDBY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VAIKOM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ------------------ B.A. No. 2375 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of July, 2010 O R D E R This petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution, first accused intended to go abroad. He required a certificate to be produced before the British High Commission showing the bank balance, which is to be above a particular amount. First accused applied for a non liability certificate from the State Bank of India and the certificate was issued. Thereafter, he along with second accused, who is a consultant, forged the document to make it appear that first accused had balance of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only) in his account. The said document was produced by first accused before the British High Commission. When it was sought to be verified with the bank, it was found that the document was forged. Therefore, the bank filed a complaint on 12.12.2009. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was called to the police station and he appeared there and explained his non-involvement. He also questioned thoroughly B.A. No. 2375 / 2010 2 by the police. First accused was forced to pay bribe of Rs. 3000/- and petitioner was forged to give bribe of Rs. 4,500/- to two police officials. A complaint was given to the director of vigilance as Annexure-3. Petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations made. It is also submitted that though the F.I.R. was registered as early as on 12.12.2009, petitioner was implicated only after two months in this case, that too, after first accused was bailed out. Petitioner is prepared to surrender before the police but he is afraid that he will be harassed, since he has filed a complaint against the police officials. In such circumstances, anticipatory bail may be granted, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that first accused was arrested on 04.03.2010 on finding that the document which he produced before the British High Commission was forged. On interrogation of the first accused, it was revealed that the document was given to the second accused and he had forged the document and thereafter it was produced by first accused before the British High Commission. Petitioner is required for interrogation to ascertain the manner in which the forgery is committed. It is also B.A. No. 2375 / 2010 3 submitted that petitioner was implicated as early as on 05.03.2010, after effecting the arrest of first accused on 04.03.2010 and on recording his confession statement. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that one of the officials against whom the complaint was given by petitioner is transferred and the other official was retired. 5. On hearing both sides, I find that the allegations made against the petitioner are serious in nature and it appears that petitioner was implicated in this crime on the very ext day of the arrest of the first accused and his interrogation. I am satisfied that petitioner is required for interrogation and in such circumstances, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with the investigation. He is at liberty to surrender before the C.I. of Police, Vaikom in the light of the apprehension expressed by him, in view of the complaint made by him against the two police officials. Petition is dismissed. K. HEMA, JUDGE ln