IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 Bail Appl..No. 7946 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.548/02 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2: ------------------------------------------------- DINESHKUMAR, S/O. SANKARAN, KURIYAKODE, ANAKKARA, MULLASSERY, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SMT.M.SHAJNA, MR.K.M.FIROZ. RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT/STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K. HEMA, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= B.A. No. 7946 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009 O R D E R Petition for anticipatory bail. 2. The alleged offences are under sections 465, 468, 471 and 12(2) of Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). On a private complaint filed by appropriate authority appointed by the State of Kerala under section 13(2) of the Act, crime was registered against petitioner and others. As per the allegations in the complaint, petitioner along with 1st accused committed forgery in respect of identification certificate of certain persons for the purpose of producing the same before the Authorization Committee constituted under section 9(b) of the Act and produced the same during the enquiry to satisfy itself that applicants have complied with all the requirements of the said Act and Rules. The Authorization Committee relied upon such false documents to grant approval to such applicants for transplanting human organ. The investigation prima facie reveals that accused 1 and 2 committed offence of forgery, etc. under sections 465, 468 and 471 IPC for monetary gain and accused 1 to 4 also committed offence under section 19 of the Act. The 4th accused was offered Rs.2,50,000/- by accused 1 and 2 for giving one of his kidney to BA 7946/08 -2- one Safiya and he gave one of his kidney in April 2002 at National Hospital, Kozhikode. Accused 1 and 2 are intermediaries in the business. The investigation reveals the violation of the provisions in the Act and involvement of accused 1 and 2 in forgery etc. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that main allegations are made against accused 1, 3 and 4. A reading of the complaint will not reveal that petitioner who is 2nd accused is involved in the offence in any manner. Petitioner, therefore, requests for anticipatory bail. 4. This petition is opposed. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner filed two applications under sections 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court; one for quashing proceedings initiated against him and another for deleting him from the array of accused. Both the petitions were dismissed (vide order dated 6-12-2008 in Crl.M.C. no.11683/2002 and order dated 2-4-2008 in Crl.M.C. no.1349/2007. This Court has found that petitioner could not be deleted from the array of accused and in case he is charge-sheeted and the allegations in the final report do not make out any offence, he may work out his remedies before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. It is also pointed out BA 7946/08 -3- that 1st accused who stands more or less in the same footing as that of the 2nd accused applied for anticipatory bail and it was dismissed as per order dated 22-5-2008 in B.A. no.2575/2008 with a direction to surrender before the Investigating Officer. 5. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the relevant documents, I find that the allegations made against petitioner are serious in nature. Offence of forgery is alleged against him. He is required for interrogation . Crime was registered in the year 2002 and he was not so far made himself available for purpose of investigation and hence, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, since allegations made against him are serious in nature. In the complaint itself reference is made involvement of 2nd accused. Considering the serious nature of the allegations made and the offences alleged, I am of the view that petitioner will be required for interrogation to ascertain the manner in which forgery and other offences are committed and other relevant facts which are in his exclusive knowledge. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. The following order is passed:- 1) Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer without any delay and co- BA 7946/08 -4- operate with the investigation. Whether he surrenders or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. 2) No further application for anticipatory bail by petitioner in this crime will be entertained by this Court, since on the facts in this case, this Court ordered that this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail and any order to the contrary in any subsequent anticipatory bail application will amount to review, which is impermissible in law. The petition is dismissed. K.HEMA, JUDGE. mn.