IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 Bail Appl..No. 617 of 2010() --------------------------------------- CRIME NO.157/2008 OF VALAPAD POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 7 & 8 --------------------------------------------------- 1. K.T. SAJU, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. LATE PAPPU, KOLLAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNNILSASTHA TEMPLE ROAD, ALLANGAD VILLAGE, WEST KODUNGALLOOR. 2. R.S. PRAKASH, S/O. K. RAVINDRAN, PRAKASH BHAVAN, EDATHARAKONAM, KARIPOORU, MALAYINKIYYU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALAPAD POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.V. TEKCHAND THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. K.T. SANKARAN, J. --------------------------- B.A. No. 617 of 2010 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 O R D E R This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners are accused Nos.7 and 8 in Crime No.157 of 2008 of Valapad Police Station, Thrissur District. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The first petitioner(accused No.7) had earlier filed B. A. No.4407/2008 for anticipatory bail. That application was dismissed by Annexure 3 order dated 29.07.2008. For the sake of convenience the order passed by Justice Hema in B. A. No. 4407/2008 is extracted below: “Petition for anticipatory bail. The alleged offences are under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of IPC. According to prosecution, certain driving licenses were issued to several persons without conducting any test and without making B.A. No. 617 of 2010 2 entries in the register of the RTO's office. One Nazar was taken into custody, under suspicious circumstances and two driving licenses were seized from his possession and on suspicion, a crime was registered under Section 41(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on investigation, offences under 420, 468 and 34 of IPC are also incorporated. The further allegation is that the 5th accused, the joint R.T.O and accused Nos. 7 and 8, two L.D. Clerks are also involved in the offence. 3. Petitioner is the 7th accused. According to learned counsel for petitioner, he is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. In the course of his duty, he would have filled up many licenses under instruction from the higher authorities, but he has no criminal intention to commit any offence and being satisfied of this, departmental enquiry has not been conducted against him. Only the joint R.T.O., the 5th accused, was proceeded against and he was suspended from service. A6 is absconding. In the above circumstances, if the petitioner is remanded to custody, it will cause irreparable loss and injury, it is submitted. B.A. No. 617 of 2010 3 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this bail application. He submitted that certain fake licenses seized are in the handwriting of the petitioner, who is the 7th accused. According to him, criminal intention of the petitioner cannot be ruled out, since corresponding entries are not made in the register. If it is a genuine transaction, the entries will be shown in the register and this fact will be within the knowledge of the petitioner himself, who is dealing with issuance of driving licenses. It is also submitted that it is revealed during investigation that the relevant registers are destroyed with a view to tamper with evidence. In such circumstances, if petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it will adversely affect the investigation, it is submitted. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that no grounds for grant of anticipatory bail are made out. Petitioner would be required for custodial interrogation and also for effective investigation. Petition is dismissed.” B.A. No. 617 of 2010 4 4. In this Bail Application, apart from accused No. 7, whose Bail Application was dismissed earlier, accused No. 8 has also joined as second petitioner. The same set of circumstances as are available in the case of accused No.7 applies in the case of accused No.8 and on the same reasoning made in Annexure A3, the request for anticipatory bail is liable to be rejected. 5. Moreover, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that even after the dismissal of bail Application No. 4407/2008, the petitioners were not arrested, most probably because the investigating officer wanted to get more reliable evidence in the form of Forensic Science Laboratory Report. Now the Forensic Science Laboratory Report is received, which would show that the documents in question were in the hand writing of either accused No.7 or accused No.8 which probabilises according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the complicity of accused Nos.7 and 8 in the offences. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor is that the evidence available at present is stronger than that which was available at the time of dismissal of Bail Application No. 4407/2008. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, all the B.A. No. 617 of 2010 5 circumstances point to the complicity of the petitioners as well in the offence. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence, the allegations levelled against the petitioners and also taking into account the order passed in Bail Application No. 4407/2008, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, it would adversely affect the proper investigation of the case. Custodial interrogation may be required in the case. For the aforesaid reasons, the Bail Application is dismissed. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE ln