IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 Bail Appl..No. 3610 of 2010() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.631/2010 OF ALUVA POLICE STATION) PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 ------------------------------------------- PADMANABHAN,AGED 59 YEARS,RASAYALAM, K.K.ROAD CHEMBUMUKKU,THRIKKAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.M.Y.VARGHESEKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY C.I. OF POLICE, NALLADOM POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J ----------------------- B.A No.3610 OF 2010 -------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of August 2010 ORDER This petition is for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under Sections 12, 1(b) of Indian Passport Act and Section 468 and 471 of I.P.C. According to prosecution, de facto complainant handed over his passport to second accused for arranging visa. When second accused went to Dubai, he handed over the passport to third accused. Since de facto complainant did not get the passport returned to him in spite of repeated demands, he applied for a fresh passport. He was informed by the authorities that his old passport was seen renewed already with the photograph of another person who is first accused in this case. Therefore, a complaint was lodged and a crime was registered under the above said sections on the allegation that forgery etc. are committed by accused numbers 1 to 3 in furtherance of common intention. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner (A3) is absolutely innocent of the allegations made. De facto complainant has no case in the FIS that he had handed over the passport to petitioner. Petitioner is not even known to de facto complainant. When the case was registered against second accused, the name of third accused is mentioned by him only with B.A No.3610 OF 2010 2 a view to wriggle out of the criminal liability. Petitioner is absolutely innocent and hence, he may be granted anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the FIS does not reveal the name of petitioner, but, on investigation, it is revealed that the passport was handed over to petitioner by second accused and that the old passport which was issued in the name of de facto complainant was renewed with the photograph of first accused. Third accused is working as an assistant to a person who arranges passport and is stationed near the passport office. Petitioner's custodial interrogation is necessary for getting further details about the nature of forgery committed and for an effective investigation. First and second accused are not so far arrested. The crime is registered as early as on 05/03/2010. 5. On hearing both sides and on considering the rival contentions, I am satisfied that petitioner will be required for custodial interrogation to ascertain the details of the alleged forgery etc. Considering serious nature of alleagtions also, I find that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Petitioner is bound to surrender and co-operate with investigation. This petition is dismissed. K.HEMA vdv JUDGE