IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 4245 of 2009 CRIME NO.508 OF 2009 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION PETITIONER/ACCUSED -------------------------------------- IBRAHIMKUTTY @ SHIBU,AGED 32 YEARS, KANHIRAMVILAKIZHAKKATHIL, KARIYARA.P.O,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT: STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.508 OF 2009 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE STATION) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------ B.A. NO. 4245 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th August, 2009 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is accused No.3 in Crime No.508 of 2009 of Pathanapuram Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Passport Act. 3. The first accused obtained an Indian passport under the Tatkal Scheme. The prosecution case is that she was aged above 30 years at the relevant time, but she wanted to get the passport showing her age as below 30. It is alleged that, for that purpose, she approached the second accused and through him the third accused and arranged the necessary certificates and got the passport. Extract of the school admission register was found to be a forged document. Investigation revealed that the date of birth shown in the copy of the extract of the school admission register is not correct with reference to the original register. So also, the signature of the Headmaster, as shown in the certificate produced along with the B.A. NO. 4245 OF 2009 :: 2 :: application for issuing passport, is different from the signature of the then Headmaster of the school. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that except the statement of the first accused, there is nothing to connect the petitioner with the offence. He also stated that on a search conducted in the travel agency no incriminating article was found. 5. In an offence of this nature, it is not possible to get direct evidence. Interrogation of the accused may become necessary, in order to find out the truth. If anticipatory bail is granted in such cases, it would seriously affect the smooth progress of the investigation and the successful culmination of the same. I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bail Application is accordingly dismissed. (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/